V 


/ 


NEW  GUIDES  TO  OLD  MASTERS 
BY  JOHN  O.  VAN  DYKE 

PRICE 

I.    London  —  National  Gallery,  Wallace  Collection. 
With  a  General  Introduction  and  Bibliog- 
raphy for  the  Series      .......  net  $1.00 

II.    Paris  —  Louvre        .........  net      .75 

III.    Amsterdam  —  Rijks  Museum  } 

The  Hague  —  Royal  Gallery    >  bound  together  .  net      .75 
Haarlem  —  Hals  Museum       ) 

^  }*****»..*      -75 

V.    Munich—  Old  Pinacothek      } 

Frankfort  —  Staedel  Institute  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 
Cassel  —  Royal  Gallery          ) 
VI.     Berlin—  Kaiser-Friedrich       } 

Museum  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Dresden  —  Royal  Gallery        ) 
VII.     Vienna  —  Imperial  Gallery    "J 

Budapest  —  Museum  of  Fine  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Arts  ) 

VIII.    St.  Petersburg—  Hermitage     ......  net      .75 


X.    Florence  —  Ufflzi,  Pitti,  Academy      ....    In  Press 

XI.    Rome  —  Vatican,  Borghese  Gallery   ....   In  Press 

XII.    Madrid—  Prado  .  net      .75 


IMPERIAL  GALLERY 


BUDAPEST  MUSEUM 


Photograph  by  Hanfstaengl,  Munich 

VERMEER    OF    DELFT:       PORTRAIT    OF    WOMAN 
The  Budapest  Museum 


NEW  GUIDES   TO   OLD   MASTERS 

VIENNA,  BUDAPEST 

CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE  IMPERIAL 
GALLERY  AND  BUDAPEST  MUSEUM 


BY 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE 

!/ 

AUTHOB  OF  "ABT  FOB  AST'S  SA£E,"  "THE  MEANING  OF  PICTURES," 
"HISTOBY  OF  PAINTING,"  "OLD  DUTCH  AND 

FLEMISH   MASTERS,"    ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 
1914  *«;: 


yv 


COPYRIGHT,  1914,  BY 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  June,  1914 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

THERE  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of  pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  the  so-called  "  old 
masters."  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 

v 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celli,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelligent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**)  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters' 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


viii  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters'  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  "di,"  "van,"  and  "von" 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi;  Correggio,  not 
Allegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robusti.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  lives  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years'  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


x  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  in  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difficulties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

JOHN  C,  VAN  DYKE. 
RUTGERS  COLLEGE,  1914, 


IMPERIAL  GALLERY,  VIENNA 


NOTE  ON  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

THE  Imperial  Gallery  at  Vienna  has  not  the  great 
reputation  of  some  other  European  galleries.  It  has 
no  such  popular  pictures  as  Raphael's  Sistine  Madonna, 
or  Titian's  Assunta,  or  Rembrandt's  Night-Watch,  or 
Paul  Potter's  Young  Bull.  But  it  is  by  no  means  in- 
ferior to  the  best  of  the  North-European  galleries  in 
works  of  true  art,  in  historic  and  representative  exam- 
ples of  great  painters,  in  school  representation.  There 
are  excellent  pictures  here  of  all  the  schools — German, 
Flemish,  Dutch,  Italian,  Spanish.  And  occasionally 
rare  and  startling  examples  of  the  minor  masters.  Be- 
lotto,  among  the  Italians,  is  generally  regarded  as  a 
feeble  echo  of  Canaletto,  but  here  at  Vienna  he  appears 
in  a  long  series  of  most  astounding  pictures.  They  are 
supremely  fine,  and  yet  very  few  people  look  at  them. 
The  more  apparent  beauty  of  Titian's  Madonna  of  the 
Cherries  or  his  Gipsy  Madonna  is  preferred.  The 
Titians  are,  of  course,  very  fine,  and  fine,  too,  are  three 
pictures  that  may  be  fairly  ascribed  to  Giorgione. 
There  are  Tintorettos  and  Paolo  Veroneses  in  number, 
several  rather  good  Lottos,  a  superb  Moretto,  in  fact, 
his  great  masterpiece,  many  Palmas,  two  Bellinis,  two 
Correggios,  and  one  very  good  early  Raphael. 

3 


4          NOTE  ON  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

Nowhere  can  Rubens  be  better  studied  than  here 
in  the  great  St.  Ildefonso  altar-piece,  in  his  large  school 
pieces,  in  his  wonderful  portraits  of  himself  and  his 
wife.  Here,  too,  his  pupil,  Van  Dyck,  is  represented 
by  a  large  number  of  figure  pieces  that  show  his  weak- 
ness, and  several  portraits  that  suggest  his  strength. 
Some  earlier  Flemings  in  this  gallery  give  one  a  great 
surprise — Peasant  Brueghel,  for  instance.  The  large 
landscape  and  figure  pieces  ascribed  to  him  are  simply 
amazing  in  their  point  of  view  and  their  flat  painting. 
The  landscapes  by  Bles  and  Patinir,  the  fantasies  of 
Bosch,  the  still-life  of  Beuckelaer  are  also  shown  in  both 
quantity  and  quality. 

Diirer  in  the  German  School  stands  out  pre-eminent 
by  virtue  of  his  large  Trinity  and  several  excellent 
portraits;  Cranach,  Altdorfer,  Strigel,  Baldung  appear 
in  many  examples,  and  Holbein  is  seen  in  several  fa- 
mous portraits — the  John  Chambers  being  of  special  ex- 
cellence. Rembrandt  does  not  appear  to  advantage — 
in  fact,  he  is  misrepresented  by  pictures  done  in  his 
school;  but  Velasquez,  though  he  has  a  number  of 
school  pieces  attributed  to  him,  is  supreme  and  almost 
sublime  in  three  children's  portraits,  than  which  Madrid 
holds  nothing  finer  or  more  perfect.  These  should  be 
studied  carefully.  The  Infante  Philip  Prosper  as  a 
child's  portrait  has  never  been  excelled,  and  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  it  has  ever  been  equalled. 

The  Imperial  Gallery  is  the  result  of  a  bringing  to- 
gether of  several  collections  in  the  eighteenth  century. 


NOTE  ON  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY    5 

The  gathering  included  the  Prague  collection  of  the 
Emperor  Rudolph  II,  rich  in  Italian  works;  the  collec- 
tion of  the  Archduke  Leopold  William,  containing  many 
Dutch  and  Venetian  pictures;  and  the  gallery  of  the 
Archduke  Ferdinand  of  Tyrol,  from  which  came  the 
Raphael,  Madonna  of  the  Meadow,  and  the  Moretto, 
St.  Justina.  Since  then  there  have  been  many  addi- 
tions, and  to-day  Vienna  can  boast  of  nearly  eighteen 
hundred  old  masters — a  representation  that  places  the 
gallery  among  the  first  in  Europe. 

The  building  in  which  the  pictures  are  housed  is 
one  of  the  most  imposing  in  Vienna.  It  is  large,  airy, 
well  lighted,  and,  generally  speaking,  well  fitted  for  a 
gallery.  The  pictures  are  arranged  by  schools  and 
are  usually  well  seen.  For  several  years  the  gallery 
has  been  in  process  of  rehanging,  and  is  now  (1913) 
beginning  to  emerge  much  the  better  for  the  rearrange- 
ment. The  catalogue  of  1907  (in  German  and  with 
illustrations)  has  critical  value  and  explains  the  pic- 
tures concisely.  A  small  English  translation  of  the 
Italian,  Spanish,  and  French  Schools  is  obtainable  in 
the  gallery.  Good  photographs  of  the  pictures  are 
sold  just  inside  the  entrance. 

In  addition  to  this  Imperial  Gallery,  the  student 
should  look  at  the  collection  of  the  Imperial  Academy 
of  Art,  where  there  are  a  few  fine  pictures  among  many 
copies  and  works  of  mediocre  quality.  Private  collec- 
tions do  not  find  mention  in  these  notes  for  obvious 
reasons,  but  the  student  in  Vienna  should  see  the  prac- 


6          NOTE  ON  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

tically  public  galleries  of  Prince  Liechtenstein,  Count 
Harrach,  and  Count  Czernin.  Finally,  there  is  for  ref- 
erence the  celebrated  Albertina,  with  its  thousands  of 
drawings  after  the  old  masters  and  its  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  engravings.  Vienna  is  a  place  where  the 
student  can  learn  the  history  of  art  quite  as  readily  as 
at  Berlin,  Paris,  or  London. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY, 

VIENNA 

705.  Aertsen,  Pieter.  Market  Scene.  The  colour 
seems  dull  and  spiritless,  but  there  is  strong, 
realistic  modelling  in  the  figures,  and  fine,  broad 
painting  in  the  baskets  and  birds.  Aertsen  is  not 
seen  here  so  well  as  in  the  Brussels  Gallery,  where 
he  fairly  shines. 

704.    Peasant  Feast.     There  is  more  tang  about  the 

colour  here  than  in  No.  705.  Look  at  the  still-life 
on  the  tables.  And  also  at  the  red  peasant  faces. 

1421.  Altdorfer,  Albrecht.  Nativity.  It  appears  some- 
what fantastic  in  the  background  and  lighting,  but 
is,  at  least,  not  commonplace  in  conception.  The 
group  of  the  Madonna,  Child  and  two  little  angels 
is  very  naive,  and  the  Joseph  is  given  with  dignity. 
Notice  the  snow  on  the  landscape,  the  sunrise  at 
the  back,  and  high  up  the  angels  singing. 

L422.   Holy  Family.     There  is  little  that  looks  "  holy  " 

about  the  group,  but  what  a  piece  of  decoration 
from  the  robes  and  their  straight  lines  to  the  ara- 
besque of  fruit  in  its  rounded  lines!  It  is  an  excel- 
lent colour  pattern  and  done  with  both  skill  and 
spirit. 

5.   Amberger  Ghristoph.     Portrait  of  Ulrich  Sul- 
czer.     The  panel  has  been  hurt,  stained,  retouched 
— so  much  so  that  the  drawing  is  now  muffled  in  the 
7 


8  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

face,  hand,  and  fur.  Originally,  no  doubt,  a  por- 
trait of  some  distinction. 

5.  Antonello  da  Saliba.  Dead  Christ.  The  senti- 
ment of  it  seems  intense,  almost  tragic.  The  angels 
with  variegated  wings  upholding  the  arms  of  Christ 
are  not  only  lovely  but  pathetic.  The  drawing  is 
hard,  the  landscape  at  the  left  is  crude  in  the  hills 
and  trees,  and  the  clouds  in  the  sky  are  of  similar 
quality.  These  defects  may  be  due  to  the  repaint- 
ing from  which  the  picture  has  suffered.  So  badly 
is  the  surface  retouched  that  one  cannot  now  say 
with  any  certainty  who  did  the  picture.  In  1912 
the  direction  of  the  gallery  said  it  was  an  Antonello 
da  Messina.  They  now  (1913)  think  of  it  more 
modestly  as  an  Antonello  da  Saliba. 

395.  Badile,  Antonio.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  The  por- 
trait is  somewhat  ponderous  in  the  figure — heavy 
in  the  arms  from  the  shoulders  down.  The  shadow 
on  the  head  at  the  right  side  is  now  so  violent  that 
we  lose  some  of  the  modelling.  The  dress  is  decora- 
tively  beautiful  and  the  ensemble  good.  The  type 
is  commanding  and  the  presence  excellent.  It  was 
formerly  thought  a  portrait  of  Caterina  Cornaro, 
the  Queen  of  Cyprus,  and  supposed  to  be  by  Paolo 
Veronese.  The  canvas  is  injured. 

397.   Portrait  of  a  Lady.     The  face  line  is  a  little 

hard,  the  nose  is  turned  up,  the  hair  is  coarse,  and 
at  the  back  the  head  cuts  away  to  nothing.  The 
background  has  darkened.  Good  hands  are  shown, 
and  a  splendid  dress.  The  colour  is  golden-brown. 
A  fine  portrait  given  with  much  dignity.  For- 
merly attributed  to  Paolo  Veronese. 

1424.    Baldung,  Hans.     Portrait  of  a  Man.    A  strange 
type  for  a  sitter — a  timid  personality,  a  shrinking, 


BASAITI,  MARCO  9 

piteous  soul.  The  colour  is  not  very  rich  or  deep 
in  hue. 

423.    Death  and  the  Maiden.     The  white  figure  of 

the  young  girl  is  placed  in  strong  contrast  to  the 
brown  Death.  Notice  also  the  beauty  of  flowing 
outline  in  the  girl,  again  in  contrast  with  the  ragged 
broken  lines  of  Death.  The  little  Love  below  is 
odd.  The  landscape  is  suggestive  of  Burgkmair. 
Formerly  ascribed  to  Altdorfer. 

34.  Bartolommeo,  Fra.  Madonna  and  Child.  It 
looks  like  the  work  of  some  inferior  painter  trying 
to  do  a  picture  after  the  style  of  Andrea  del  Sarto. 
It  is  hardly  a  Bartolommeo,  nor  a  picture  by  any 
artist  of  the  first  rank,  though  it  possibly  came  out 
of  Bartolommeo's  shop. 

41.    Presentation  in  the  Temple.     It  is  a  heavy 

picture  all  through.  The  figures  are  short  and 
stout,  the  robes  broad  and  flat,  the  group  oblong 
and  angular.  In  addition,  the  colour  is  hot,  the 
flesh  flushed,  and  the  blue  of  the  Madonna's  robe 
seems  out  of  key.  It  is  not  a  satisfactory  example 
of  this  master,  and  is  possibly  only  a  school  piece. 

1.    Basaiti,  MarCO.      Calling  of  Sons  of  Zebedee.      It 

is  a  variation  of  the  larger  picture  of  the  same  sub- 
ject in  the  Venice  Academy  (No.  39)  but  apparently 
thinner  and  poorer  than  the  Venetian  example. 
The  action  here  is  from  left  to  right,  whereas  in  the 
larger  picture  it  is  from  right  to  left.  The  archi- 
tectural framework  is  well  done,  but  possibly 
something  of  a  mistake  as  the  picture  now  stands. 
The  blackish  space  around  the  frame  is  not  attrac- 
tive. The  sky  and  distance  with  the  colour  are 
very  good.  The  faces  are  repainted  as  well  as 
portions  of  the  landscape. 


10  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

1431.  Beck,  Leonhard.     St.  George.   The  surface  detail 
of  it  seems  better  wrought  out  than  the  underlying 
structure.    The  St.  George  and  his  gaily  capari- 
soned steed  are  very  fine  and  the  rescued  princess 
with  the  lamb  at  the  right  naive.    At  the  back  the 
princess  is  seen  walking  away  and  leading  by  a  string 
the  dragon  or  a  green  sheep,  no  one  knows  exactly 
which.     The  landscape  is  a  little  formal.     Attribu- 
tion questioned  by  the  catalogue. 

1432.  Beham,  Barthel.     Ferdinand  I.    This  is  the  same 
sitter  as  shown  in  No.  1427,  by  Maler  zu  Schwaz, 
according  to  the  catalogue,  but  the  hair,  eyes,  and 
flesh  are  quite  different.     A  good  portrait  but  not 
necessarily  by  Beham. 

4.  Bellini,  Giovanni.  Baptism  of  Christ.  The 
landscape  is  rather  fine  but  the  figures  are  not  well 
done.  At  least  they  are  not  well  enough  done  for 
Bellini's  hand  to  have  done  them.  The  picture  is 
evidently  a  repetition  of  the  Vicenza  picture  (as  the 
catalogue  suggests)  by  some  member  of  the  Bellini 
School. 
13.  Young  Woman  at  Toilet.  The  figure  is  white, 

*  a  little  ivory-like,  somewhat  hard  in  outline,  and 
flattened  by  cleaning.  The  type  is  handsome,  the 
head-dress  odd,  the  landscape  very  good.  It  was 
formerly  attributed  to  Bellini,  then  given  to  Bissolo, 
and  now  given  back  to  Bellini.  But  it  does  not 
belong  to  either  painter.  It  is  nearer  to  Catena. 
It  has  been  hurt  across  the  legs,  in  the  draperies,  in 
the  sky,  but  is  still  a  handsome  piece  of  form  and 
colour.  Notice  the  reflecting  mirror. 

89.    Bellini,  School  of.     Madonna  and  Child.     It  is 

not  great.     The  work  is  duller  than  the  Boccaccino 
at  Venice  (No.  600)  and  both  the  Madonna  and 


BELOTTO,  BERNARDO  11 

Child  are  rather  heavy  though  well  modelled.  The 
robe  is  rich  in  pattern  and  colour  but  is  hard  and 
airless.  And  the  Madonna's  hand  with  the  cherries, 
outstretched  as  though  asking  alms,  seems  odd. 
Formerly  given  to  the  School  of  Bellini,  then  to 
Boccaccino,  now  again  to  the  Bellini  School,  but  no 
one  knows  just  where  it  belongs.  Dr.  Borenius 
thinks  it  shows  the  influence  of  Antonello  da  Mes- 
sina. Its  connection  with  Bellini  seems  slight. 

455.    Belotto,  Bernardo.    Ruins  of  Thebes.    A  fine, 

*  large  landscape  with  sunlight  at  the  right  and  dark 
shadow  at  the  left.     Such  pictures  as  these  by 
Belotto  have  never  been  half  appreciated.     They 
are  far  and  away  ahead  of  the  Venetian  things  of 
his  uncle,  Canaletto.    The  largeness  of  view  as 
well  as  of  canvas,  the  breadth  and  truth  of  both 
construction  and  handling,  the  hold-together  and 
ensemble  are  really  superb.    Of  course,  they  are 
dark  in  colour  and  light,  but  the  relationship  of 
the  light  to  the  shade  is  properly  maintained.    No- 
tice the  fine,  green  hillside  with  ruined  buildings, 
the  lake  and  distance,  the  sky  and  clouds. 

458.    Schbnbrunn  Castle.     It  is  not  SO  good  as  No. 

455  but  is  impressive,  nevertheless.  It  is  a  little 
more  formal  in  the  pattern  of  the  grounds,  and  the 
painter  probably  followed  the  actual  model  with 
literal  truth.  The  topography  counted  with  the 
patron  rather  than  the  art,  and  the  painter  had  to 
make  a  map  as  well  as  a  picture. 

463.    Imperial  Castle.     It  is  wonderfully  fine  in  the 

*  sky,  clouds,  and  distance.     The  colour  is  a  little 
monotonous   but  the  ensemble,  the  air,  the  tone 
are  superb.     The  key  of  light  is  low  but  its  rela- 
tion to  the  shadow  is  again  perfectly  maintained 


12  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

throughout.  Look  at  the  figures — how  beautifully 
they  are  done,  how  charming  they  are  as  colour, 
how  wonderfully  they  hold  their  place  in  the  picture! 
Even  the  railings  of  the  fountains  and  the  build- 
ings at  the  back  are  to  be  admired  for  their  pictur- 
esque drawing. 

465.   Imperial    Castle.     Another    great    landscape 

*  with  a  fine  sky,  distance,  and  architectural  draw- 
ing.   The  light  is  dark  but  again  true  in  relation 
to  the  shadows. 

466.   Imperial  Castle.    It  is  really  magnificent  in 

*  distance,  light,  sky,  mountains,  and  sea.     All  these 
Belottos  here  at  Vienna  are  wonderful  landscapes. 
It  is  astonishing  that  no  one  seems  to  look  at  them 
or  writes  or  talks  about  them.     Modern  landscape, 
with  all  its  coloured  light,  air,  and  shadows,  seems 
just  a  bit  foolish  beside  these  majestic  creations  of 
Belotto. 

26.    Benozzo,  Gozzoli.     Madonna  and  Child.     A  pic- 

*  ture  rich  in  colour  and  quite  splendid  in  its  gold 
work.    This  gold  work,  in  the  haloes  and  elsewhere, 
is  tooled,  not  stamped.     The  robes  are  as  angular 
as  the  drawing  of  the  hands  and  faces,  but  even  the 
folds  and  wrinkles  are  decoratively  arranged.    The 
picture  is  well  put  together  in  a  balanced  composi- 
tion and  well  planned  for  richness  of  colour  effect 
by  placing  the  Madonna  against  the  white  ermine, 
giving  her  fine  garments,  and  surrounding  her  with 
beautiful  gildings,  colours,  flowers,  angels.     What 
fine  feeling  and  good  sentiment  there  are  about  the 
Madonna  and  the  kneeling  saints!    Look  at  the 
forest  of  trees  on  either  side. 

707A.   Beuckelaer,  Joachim.     The  Cook.    A  strong 

*  piece  of  drawing,  with  excellent  painting  of  still- 


BLES,  HERRI  MET  DE  13 

life,  but  it  hardly  reaches  up  to  the  same  subject 
by  this  painter's  master,  Aertsen,  in  the  Brussels 
Gallery  (No.  2).  However,  the  technical  grip  of 
it  is  compelling  and  the  colour  is  excellent.  Look 
at  the  meat  in  the  basket. 

706.    Poultry  Seller.     Of  the  same  kind  and  quality 

as  No.  707A.     It  is  strong  still-life  painting  but 
not  very  good  in  colour.     It  is  blackish. 

707.    Market   Woman.     More  brutal  in  type  and 

colour  than  No.  707A  but  not  better.     His  mas- 
ter, Aertsen,  is  more  virile  and  more  original  but 
Beuckelaer  is  strong  enough  at  times. 

670.   Bles,   Herri   met  de.     The  Road  to  Emmaus. 

This  picture  and  Nos.  671,  672,  664,  and  669  are 
all  more  or  less  of  similar  origin.  They  are  to  be 
ranged  about  Patinir  rather  than  Bles.  The  owl 
signature  is  misleading.  See  the  notes  on  the 
Bles  pictures  here,  Nos.  673  and  657.  The  little 
picture,  No.  664,  by  Patinir  is  very  interesting  in 
its  clear  drawing  of  rocks. 

673.   St.  Jerome.     There  is  nothing  in  this  picture, 

either  in  figures  or  landscape,  that  points  to  Bles 
as  he  appears  in  the  pictures  attributed  to  him  at 
Brussels,  Antwerp,  Madrid,  and  elsewhere.  The 
owl  sign  of  Bles  is  by  no  means  a  thing  to  rely  upon. 
Other  painters  used  it  frequently.  The  three  pic- 
tures by  Bosch  in  the  next  room  (Nos.  651,  652, 
653)  all  have  it.  In  the  Bosch  No.  653  it  appears 
on  the  leg  of  the  fainting  man  as  though  put  there 
purposely  as  a  signature,  yet  at  the  bottom  we  have 
the  signed  name  of  Bosch  and  the  picture  is  un- 
doubtedly by  Bosch.  If  every  Netherland  pic- 
ture with  an  owl  in  it  were  given  to  Bles  and  every 
Italian  picture  with  a  bone  in  it  to  Dossi,  we  should 


14  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

have  more  of  a  mix-up  in  art  history  than  at  pres- 
ent— which  is  saying  much.  This  picture  (No. 
673)  belongs  with  the  Patinir  pictures.  Even  the 
catalogue  queries  it. 

657.    Temptation  of  St.  Anthony.     In  this  picture, 

and  also  in  Nos.  654,  655,  and  656,  Bles  seems  con- 
fused with  the  style  of  Bosch.  There  is  not  a  Bles 
in  the  Vienna  Gallery  that  closely  corresponds  with 
the  pictures  attributed  to  him  elsewhere.  The 
Adoration  (No.  662)  comes  nearer  to  agreement 
than  any  other  but  is  not  satisfactory  or  convinc- 
ingly in  Bles's  style.  It  is  by  a  Bles  follower.  M. 
Hulin  de  Loo,  in  the  Burlington  Magazine  for 
October,  1912,  insists  that  the  real  Bles  was  ex- 
clusively a  landscape  painter,  that  his  name  was 
Kerry  Patinier,  and  that  all  the  figure  pictures  at- 
tributed to  Bles  are  pseudo-Bleses.  This  not  only 
eliminates  owl  signs  and  nicknames  but  puts  Bles 
himself  out  of  existence.  And,  after  all,  that  may 
be  the  right  conclusion. 

145.    Bonifazio    dei    Pitati.      Daughter   of   Herodias. 

The  same  model  is  seen  again  in  the  Supper  in 
the  Rich  Man's  House  in  the  Venice  Academy 
(No.  291).  The  drawing  seems  somewhat  distorted. 
The  features  are  set  to  the  right  of  the  face,  the 
distance  to  the  ear  is  too  great,  the  arm  is  badly 
done.  It  is  hardly  worth  disputing  about  who 
painted  it  and  yet  the  picture  has  good  colour  and 
a  general  air  of  some  distinction. 

157. Portrait  of  Lady.    It  is  a  smooth  portrait, 

slightly  drawn  in  the  face  and  hands,  but  of  agree- 
able personality.  The  lady  is  dressed  handsomely. 
The  attribution  is  questionable. 


BORDONE,  PARIS.  15 

226.  Bonifazio  Veneziano.  Vision  of  Priest.  A  dec- 
orative affair  and  that  is  about  all.  The  figures  are 
not  well  drawn.  The  distance  is  Venetian  with  a 
view  of  the  Ducal  Palace.  Another  view  of  the 
Piazza  S.  Marco  in  No.  171  A.  The  very  existence 
of  the  painter  is  doubted.  The  picture  is  probably 
from  the  shop  of  Bonifazio  dei  Pitati. 

170  }  Madonna  and  Annunciation  Angel.     Two  pic- 

171  /  tures  that  originally  belonged  closer  together  than 

at  present,  perhaps — that  is,  belonged  to  one  pic- 
ture. They  are  brilliant  in  colour  if  a  little  coarse 
in  spirit. 

172  1 Four  Saints.    Two  pictures  of  some  decorative 

188  J  merit  but  not  wonderful  in  any  way.    They  are 

probably  shop  work  from  the  studio  of  Bonifazio 
dei  Pitati.  Bonifazio  Veneziano  was  brought  into 
existence  by  Morelli's  imagination. 

248.    Bordone,    Paris.     Portrait  of  a    Young   Woman. 

The  flesh  is  pallid,  the  face  flushed,  the  hair  hemp- 
like,  the  high  lights  on  the  robe  glittering.  The 
picture  is  rather  coarsely  done  and  has  probably 
been  retouched. 

231.    A    Young    Woman.     It   seems   better  in   the 

flesh-notes  than  either  No.  248  or  No.  233  or  No. 
246  but  in  itself  is  not  remarkable.  The  figure  is 
well  suggested  and  the  hands  and  arms  are  rightly 
done,  but  the  same  coarse  hair  appears  here  as 
elsewhere. 

23lA.    Portrait  of  a  Courtesan.     This  is,  perhaps, 

the  best  of  the  Bordones  here  though  still  glitter- 
ing in  the  high  lights  of  hair  and  dress.  The  left 
hand  is  badly  drawn  and  the  colour  contrast  of  the 
red  and  blue  is  not  particularly  happy. 


16  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

651.    Bosch,    Jerome.      Temptation    of   St.    Anthony. 

The  picture  has  some  fine  colour  about  it  but  has 
been  injured  somewhat.  The  left  wing  has,  per- 
haps, blackened  and  is  not  now  in  tone  with  the 
rest  of  the  triptych. 

653.    Martyrdom  of  St.  Julia.     It  is  not  only  a  beau- 

*  tiful  triptych  in  colour  but  is  interesting  for  its  flat 
painting.  What  fine  costumes!  There  is  a  swing 
about  the  lines  of  Bosch's  costumes,  especially  the 
trains  of  them,  that  reminds  one  of  Bles  and  per- 
haps leads  to  some  of  Bosch's  pictures  being  put 
down  to  Bles,  as  in  the  next  cabinet  (Nos.  655-657) 
or  at  Amsterdam  (No.  522).  The  left  panel  here 
is  dark  as  in  No.  651.  The  landscape  very  good. 
Notice  the  water  in  the  panel  at  the  left.  See  also 
No.  652. 

1245.  Bramer,  Leonard.  Allegory  of  Vanity.  This 
picture  and  No.  1246  are  both  of  them  excellent  in 
shadow  and  air  with  some  good  painting  in  the 
still-life.  It  is  free  but  not  very  certain  brush- 
work — that  is,  it  is  not  very  accurate  in  drawing. 
The  No.  1246  shows  the  same  kind  of  facile  han- 
dling. 

1135.  Brouwer,  Adriaen.  Peasant  Drinking.  A  fine 
piece  of  painting  in  which  the  drawing,  colour,  and 
texture  are  all  given  with  skill  and  effect.  It  is 
absolute  work.  Look  at  the  barrel  or  the  jug  and 
then  look  at  the  depth  and  breadth  of  the  figure, 
its  attitude  and  weight. 

914.  Brueghel  the  Elder,  Jan  (Velvet).  Storm  at 
Sea.  It  has  something  of  the  colour  quality  of  No. 
904,  and  is  possibly  by  the  same  hand  that  did 
Nos.  709,  711,  713,  984  in  this  gallery— that  is,  not 


BRUEGHEL  THE  ELDER,  PETER      17 

Velvet  Brueghel  but  a  Brueghel  we  shall  call 
Seasons  Brueghel.  See  note  on  No.  709.  There 
is  a  great  heave  of  the  waters  and  a  feeling  of  in- 
undation about  it.  Very  well  done.  For  Velvet 
Brueghel,  see  Nos.  908  and  911. 

708.  Brueghel  the  Elder,  Peter  (Peasant).    Playing 
*       Children.    The  nine  large  canvases  put  down  to 

Peasant  Brueghel  and  shown  in  this  gallery  are  as 
astonishing  as  any  art  ever  turned  out  of  the  Neth- 
erlands. They  are  so  wonderful  in  their  landscapes, 
so  remarkable  in  colour,  so  modern  in  their  flat 
painting  that  one  is  quite  upset  at  the  thought  that 
no  one  seems  to  love  them  or  appreciate  them  or 
even  mention  them.  We  lose  ourselves,  perhaps 
in  studying  single  figures  in  such  a  picture  as  the 
first  one  of  the  nine  (No.  708) ;  but  go  back  across 
the  gallery,  where  the  spottiness  of  the  figures  is 
less  apparent,  and  see  what  a  setting  of  buildings, 
a  street,  a  sea,  and  a  landscape  are  shown  here. 
What  light-and-shade!  Go  close  again  and  exam- 
ine the  little  figures  and  what  motion  and  life  they 
have,  how  easily  they  are  painted!  And  what 
quality  in  such  colours  as  the  reds  and  blues!  By 
the  same  hand  that  did  Nos.  710  and  712 — that  is, 
Peasant  Brueghel,  in  all  probability,  but  not  by 
the  painter  we  have  called  Seasons  Brueghel. 

709.   Autumn  Landscape.     Some   of   the   trees   in 

**     this  picture  are  bare;   others  in  the  distance  have 

brown  foliage;  several  peasants  are  driving  cattle 
up  into  the  hills.  This  is  the  most  astonishing 
landscape  of  a  series  of  three  representing  the  Sea- 
sons— the  Summer  having  been  lost.  Any  modern 
impressionist  (if  he  could  be  induced  to  enter  a 
gallery)  might  rave  over  it.  The  drawing  is  sum- 


18  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

mary,  large,  wonderful  in  outline,  almost  like  that 
of  Daumier.  The  painting  is  thin,  not  loaded  in 
the  high  lights,  very  flat,  almost  meagre  in  its  econ- 
omy of  pigment.  But  what  a  result!  What  an 
effect!  The  men,  cattle,  horses,  trees,  mountains, 
sky  are  almost  startling  in  their  truth  of  represen- 
tation— their  large  truth  not  their  petty  details. 
What  water,  river  banks,  and  hills  in  the  foreground ! 
What  a  herd  of  cattle,  what  bare  trees,  what  depth 
and  distance  through  to  the  blue  mountains  at  the 
back!  It  is  more  modern  in  spirit  and  in  method 
than  a  Courbet,  a  Millet,  or  even  a  Manet.  The 
light,  air,  colour,  perspective  are  all  excellent. 
When  the  oddity  of  it  wears  off  the  student  will 
find  this  landscape  one  of  much  power  and  beauty. 
The.  painter  of  it  did  Nos.  711,  713,  914,  984  in  this 
gallery,  but  not  the  other  pictures  ascribed  to 
Peasant  Brueghel.  He  is  the  strongest  of  all  the 
Brueghels  and  quite  distinct  from  those  heretofore 
known  to  us.  To  identify  him  he  may  be  called 
Seasons  Brueghel. 

711.    Spring  Landscape.     Apparently  this  landscape 

**  is  a  representation  of  early  spring  before  life  has 
started.  The  light  is  dim  and  a  storm  is  gathering. 
Barring  the  difference  in  light,  the  picture  is  similar 
in  treatment  to  No.  709.  It  shows  the  same  meagre 
use  of  pigment,  large  outline  drawing,  and  flat 
painting.  And  it  has  the  same  grasp  and  strength 
about  it.  The  painter  knows  exactly  what  he 
wants  to  do  and  does  it  easily,  serenely,  truly,  surely. 
The  warm  foreground  with  houses  and  figures  leads 
away  to  the  stormy  water,  the  dark  sky,  and  the 
distant  mountains  with  snow  still  lingering  on  their 
heights.  How  beautifully  the  bare  trees  cut  against 
the  sky!  How  they  seem  to  emphasise  the  atmos- 


BRUEGHEL  THE  ELDER,  PETER      19 

phere,  the  temperature,  the  season !  All  nature  with- 
out is  cold  and  forbidding,  and  by  way  of  contrast 
you  have  the  suggestion  of  warmth  and  security 
as  shown  in  the  peasants  and  their  well-sheltered 
houses  in  the  foreground.  What  wonderful  water! 
Difficult  to  see  because  of  the  glass.  An  excellent 
landscape.  By  Seasons  Brueghel,  painter  of  Nos. 
709,  711,  914,  984. 

713.  Winter  Landscape.  Another  landscape  of  the 

Seasons  series  and  a  companion  to  Nos.  709  and 
711.  The  snow  with  the  dark  figures  and  tree 
trunks  against  it  make  the  picture  almost  an  effect 
in  black  and  white,  but  there  is  warmth  of  colour 
rubbed  into  the  houses,  the  dogs,  and  the  fire.  With 
little  actual  demonstration  of  colour,  the  picture 
still  impresses  one  as  possessing  it.  It  is  handled 
in  just  the  same  manner  as  the  others  of  the  Seasons 
series,  being  thinly  and  flatly  painted  and  such 
things  as  the  figures  count  largely  as  patches  of 
dark  on  the  light  ground.  But  the  figures  are  in 
perfect  keeping;  their  values  are  always  maintained. 
Compare  those  in  the  foreground,  as  regards  their 
value  as  black,  with  the  figures  standing  about  the 
fire,  or  study  a  moment  the  values  in  the  reced- 
ing tree  trunks.  Their  truth  is  astonishing.  The 
whites  are  treated  with  the  same  discrimination  as 
regards  their  values.  The  birds  and  the  little  figures 
on  the  ice  hold  their  own  as  blacks  no  better  than 
the  housetops  or  the  hills  or  distant  mountains  as 
whites.  As  a  result,  what  aerial  perspective! 
What  distance,  atmosphere,  and  ensemble!  An- 
other great  landscape  by  Seasons  Brueghel.  See 
note  on  No.  709. 

710.  Massacre  of  the  Innocents.  After  studying 

*  Nos.  709,  711,  and  713,  one  is  loath  to  believe  that 


20  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

this  snow  scene  is  by  the  same  hand.  It  is  not  so 
well  done.  It  is  handled  in  a  somewhat  similar 
way,  but  is  not  so  largely  or  so  surely  done.  The 
figures  are  smaller  but  have  more  colour  and  seem 
to  count  for  more  in  the  picture  than  the  build- 
ings, trees,  or  distance.  This  is  different  from  No. 
713,  where  everything  is  regarded  as  merely  a 
block  in  the  mosaic.  But  the  values  and  the  col- 
ours here  are  well  maintained  and  are  effective. 
It  is  a  fine  picture  and  only  a  little  less  interesting 
than  713.  Probably  by  Peasant  Brueghel. 

712.   The  Way  to  Calvary.     There  is  no  prominence 

**  given  here  to  the  central  group  of  the  Christ  bear- 
ing the  Cross,  no  pyramidal  composition  to  exalt, 
no  concentration  of  light  or  colour  to  illumine  or 
attract.  It  is  the  genre  treatment  of  the  scene 
wherein  every  object  holds  the  place  it  would  in 
reality  if  seen  from  a  distant  slope.  The  figures  of 
people  are  related  to  the  landscape  largely  as  spots 
of  colour.  The  Madonna,  Magdalen,  and  St.  John 
are  larger  than  the  others  only  because  they  hap- 
pen to  be  in  the  foreground  and  truthful  perspec- 
tive required  their  enlargement.  It  is  a  crowd,  a 
real  scattered  crowd,  making  its  way  to  Golgotha 
from  many  directions  without  a  blessed  thought  of 
coming  together  in  a  picturesque  group  for  the 
painter  to  paint  them.  There  has  been  an  evident 
desire  to  tell  the  exact  truth  of  appearance  as  seen 
by  a  Brueghel's  northern  eyes.  It  is  truly  a  won- 
derful, animated  gathering,  pictured  in  just  as 
wonderful  a  landscape.  Notice  the  central  height 
of  rock,  or  back  of  it  the  shadowed  dale,  or  in  the 
distance  the  circling  city  walls.  Notice  also  the 
receding  clouds  in  the  sky  as  well  as  the  figures  on 
the  earth.  What  distance,  depth,  and  air  are  here! 


BRUEGHEL  THE  ELDER,  PETER      21 

Colour  is  everywhere  laid  on  in  flat  tones,  patch- 
painted,  with  little  shadow,  and  no  impasto  of 
importance  (see,  for  instance,  the  painting  of  the 
women's  robes  in  the  foreground) ;  yet  relief,  mod- 
elling, depth,  are  given.  The  figures  have  thickness 
as  well  as  height  and  breadth.  This  again  is  an 
astonishing  picture.  One  could  make  a  book  out 
of  it,  using  it  to  illustrate  almost  every  correct 
principle  of  modern  painting.  Probably  by  Peasant 
Brueghel. 

714.   The  Conversion  of  Paul.     What  an  extraor- 
dinary  flight   of   the   imagination!    What   other 
painter  ever  conceived  the  conversion  of  Paul  (or 
Saul)  in  such  a  way  as  this!    The  scene  is  high  up 
in  the  mountains,  with  great  canons  breaking  down 
to  the  sea  and  lofty  peaks  reaching  up  to  the  sky. 
It  is  so  high  up  that  the  pines  and  hemlocks  are  seen 
in  clumps  and  the  peaks  are  mere  bare  rock  above 
the  timber-line.     Files  of  soldiers  are  coming  up 
the  canon,  only  their  heads  showing  above  the 
rocky  slash.    Far  up  the  slope  they  are  filing  on, 
with  only  a  few  of  them  turning  back  to  see  the 
fall  of  Paul.    What  a  crowd  and  huddle  of  figures! 
What  a  push  and  drive  of  forces  upward!    What  a 
blaze  of  martial  colour  here  and  there  under  the 
abnormally  disturbed  light  and  sky!    The  picture 
is  painted  flatly  and  thinly,  with  true  values,  good 
air,  and  perfect  perspective.    Probably  by  Peasant 
Brueghel. 

715.   The  Tower  of  Babel.     It  is  just  as  wonderful 

*      in  treatment  as  the  other  pictures  of  the  series  by 

Peasant  Brueghel  but  is,  perhaps,  less  interest- 
ing in  theme  and  in  colour.  There  are  too  many 
small  objects  in  it,  and  it  becomes  more  or  less 


22  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

panoramic.  But  there  are  fine  bits  here  and  there, 
such  as  the  ships  and  sea  down  at  the  right  or  the 
masons  working  at  the  left  or  the  distant  town. 
The  landscape  and  sky  are  a  little  cold.  Probably 
by  Peasant  BruegheL 

716.   A  Netherland  Masquerade.     Perhaps  the  least 

*      interesting  in  subject  and  treatment  of  any  of  the 

large  Brueghels  here.  The  colours  are  pronounced 
and  at  times  spotty,  though  there  are  excellent 
light-and-shade,  good  air,  and  hold-together  about 
the  picture.  It  has  the  same  kind  of  painting  as 
the  other  canvases,  though  it  may  have  been  done 
by  one  of  the  Brueghels  other  than  Peasant  Brue- 
ghel. 

719.    Kermess.     Looked  at  decoratively,  merely  as 

**  a  coloured  pattern,  what  could  be  finer  than  this? 
As  flat  painting  it  has  never  been  surpassed  and 
seldom  equalled.  The  man  who  could  do  such 
work  was  a  great  craftsman.  No  matter  about  his 
lack  of  the  sense  of  beauty  in  faces  and  figures  or 
his  grossness  of  types  or  subject.  He  was  not  try- 
ing to  paint  Greek  goddesses  but  Flemish  peasants. 
Judge  him  by  what  he  tried  to  do,  not  by  what 
he  never  thought  of  doing.  What  figures,  faces, 
houses,  trees  are  here!  They  are  not  only  real  but 
picturesque  and  artistic  to  the  last  degree.  Prob- 
ably by  Peasant  Brueghel,  though  it  seems  differ- 
ent work  from  that  of  No.  712. 

717.    Peasant  Wedding.     It  would  be  impossible  to 

**     conjure  up  a  truer  characterisation  of  peasant  life 

than  this.  Study  the  types,  from  the  silly  bride 
against  the  wall  to  the  dumb,  staring  musician  in 
the  centre,  or  the  stupid  little  boy  in  the  foreground, 
or  the  cattle-like  huddle  of  coarse  figures  at  the 


BURGKMAIR,  HANS  23 

back.  It  is  everywhere  the  exact,  brutal  truth 
without  attempt  at  disguise  in  any  form.  And  yet 
see  what  colour  the  painter  has  wrung  out  of  the 
walls,  the  smoked  rafters,  the  hats  and  coats,  the 
dishes  of  food,  the  jugs !  It  is  a  marvel  of  truthful 
colour,  light,  air,  handling.  What  could  be  better, 
for  instance,  than  the  waiters  carrying  plates  of 
food  on  a  great  cellar  door,  seen  at  the  right?  It 
is  really  perfect  painting.  The  moderns  have  never 
gone  beyond  it.  By  the  painter  of  No.  719 — that  is, 
probably,  Peasant  Brueghel. 

720.    The  Shepherd.     It  might  be  thought  more  ex- 

*  traordinary  if  we  had  not  such  a  splendid  showing 
in  the  larger  Brueghels  near  at  hand — the  best  in 
the  world.  Still,  here  is  a  fine  piece  of  realistic 
work — red  eyelids  and  all.  And  with  good  col- 
our. This,  too,  in  spite  of  the  rather  strong  sus- 
picion that  neither  Seasons  Brueghel  nor  Peasant 
Brueghel  painted  the  picture  but  that  it  is,  per- 
haps, by  one  of  the  lesser  following. 

984.   Sea    Piece.     What    a    fine    thing    in    colour! 

Never  mind  the  fantastic  in  it.  Judged  by  its 
sesthetic  and  decorative  quality  as  colour,  it  will 
stand  up  well.  It  is  by  the  painter  of  Nos.  709, 
711,  713,  914 — Seasons  Brueghel.  It  is  of  no  great 
importance  that  we  cannot  give  his  name  more 
positively.  Art  is  not  a  matter  of  name  or  pedi- 
gree. Look  at  the  work  and  let  the  connoisseurs 
quarrel  about  the  worker. 
Bueckelaer.  See  Beuckelaer. 
1405.  Burgkmair,  Hans.  Portrait  of  the  Painter  and 
Wife.  These  portraits  show  the  influence  of  Diirer 
though  looser  in  drawing  and  freer  in  handling. 
They  have  not  Diirer's  accuracy  but  they  are  well 


24  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

drawn,  nevertheless.  There  is  also  much  serious- 
ness in  the  painter's  point  of  view.  Slightly  re- 
painted. 

223.    Galisto  Piazza  da  Lodi.     Daughter  of  Herodias. 

It  is  not  very  good  work.  There  are  too  many 
figures  in  it  though  they  are  fairly  well  drawn. 
The  colouring  is  warm  all  through  and  the  flesh 
is  reddish.  Somewhat  brutal  in  theme. 

1338.  Cappelle,  Jan  van  de.  Smooth  Sea.  Perhaps  the 
best  of  the  numerous  sea  pieces  by  the  Dutch 
painters  in  this  gallery.  It  is  neither  very  learned 
nor  very  cunning  but  is  a  good  piece  of  colour  and 
light.  The  Vlieger  (No.  1339),  and  the  Backhuisen 
(No.  1341)  are  no  improvement  upon  it. 

205.    Cariani,  Giovanni  Busi.     The  Apostle  John.    It 

was  formerly  thought  to  be  a  Dossi,  then  a  Palma, 
and  now  it  is  assigned  to  Cariani.  It  is  not  an  im- 
portant work  no  matter  who  its  painter. 

7.    Carpaccio,    Vittore.      Christ   Adored   by   Angels. 

The  landscape  seems  odd  for  Carpaccio.  The  trees 
are  small,  bunched,  and  hard  where  they  cut  into 
the  sky-line.  The  sky  itself  seems  crude.  The  an- 
gels are  the  best  part  of  the  picture,  but  they,  too, 
are  hard  in  their  robes  though  very  charming  in  sen- 
timent. The  figure  of  the  Christ  is  thin  and  mea- 
gre. The  composition  is  pyramidal — the  angels 
supporting  the  cross  and  the  figure.  There  is  some 
fine  colour  in  the  cloth  back  of  the  Christ  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  everything  in  the  picture  has  been 
more  or  less  repainted.  It  is  a  questionable  Car- 
paccio in  spite  of  its  well-preserved  signature. 

606.    Carreiio  de  Miranda,  Juan.     Charles  II.    An- 
other version,  perhaps,  of  the  portraits  seen  at 


CLEVE,  JUSTE  VAN  DER  BEKE  VAN  25 

Madrid  (No.  642)  and  Berlin  (No.  407),  the  sitter 
being  here  a  little  older  in  years.  This  portrait 
is  more  substantial  than  those  at  Madrid  and 
Berlin.  The  hair,  chain,  dress,  and  curtain  are 
well  painted. 

20.  Catena,  Vincenzo.  Portrait.  The  colour  is 
crude  blue  with  green  and  mauve.  The  face  is 
well  enough  done  but  a  little  flat  and  now  repainted. 
The  hands  are  hard  and  they  also  are  repainted. 
The  figure  is  flattened  against  a  grey  ground. 

91.  Gesare  da  Sesto.  Daughter  of  Herodias.  The 
figure  is  graceful  and  a  little  sentimental.  The  sur- 
face of  the  picture  is  smooth,  rather  glassy;  the 
robes  are  washed  out  in  the  high  lights  for  relief, 
as  over  the  knee,  for  example;  the  colour  is  a  little 
weak.  Thought  at  one  time  to  have  been  painted 
by  Leonardo. 

19.  Cima,  Giovanni  Battista.  Madonna  under  an 
Orange-Tree.  It  is  a  fair  Cima.  The  figures  seem 
disturbed  by  the  trees  which  are,  in  turn,  rather 
cheap,  space-filling  devices.  The  Madonna  and 
Child  are  not  very  good  in  colour  though  the  blue 
robe  at  the  right  is  attractive.  Notice  the  blue 
mountains  at  the  back  with  Cima's  road  winding 
out  and  up  to  a  hill  city.  The  sky  is  high  and 
rather  fine. 

682.  Cleve,  Juste  van  der  Beke  van  (Master  of 
Death  of  Virgin).  Madonna  and  Child.  With 
fine  feeling  and  some  minute  painting  in  the 
head-dress,  hair,  and  still-life.  The  dark  ground 
back  of  the  Madonna  seems  to  have  been  painted 
in  later  and  the  aureole  added  about  the  head. 

643A.    Queen  Eleanor  of  France.     A  small  portrait 

that  has  about  it  a  suggestion  of  Gossart.    It  is 


26  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

elaborately  done  in  the  costume  and  jewels  but  is 
hard  in  the  surface  and  uneasy  in  the  spots  of  white. 
The  attribution  is  only  a  guess. 

684.    Madonna  and  Child.     This  is  similar  to  No. 

682  and  is  of  the  same  quality.  Notice  the  still- 
life  and  the  landscape.  The  Diirer  monogram  and 
date  on  the  ledge  are  forgeries. 

683.   Altar-Piece.     A  triptych  with  rich  architec- 

*  ture,  fine  robes,  and  excellent  donors  in  the  wings. 
The  work  is  very  well  wrought  especially  in  the 
donors  and  their  patrons.     Look  at  the  charming 
St.  Catherine  at  the  right  in  her  gorgeous  costume 
or  the  fine  St.  George  in  his  armour  at  the  left. 
The  central  panel  is  rich  in  colour  and  shows  much 
feeling  in  the  Madonna  and  angel.     Something  in 
the  figures,  robes,  and  architecture  suggests  Gos- 
sart;  and  not  the  least  interesting  part  of  the  pic- 
ture is  the  landscape  which  suggests  Patinir  and 
his  following.     The  same  glassy  surface  quality  as 
in  No.  643A. 

602.    Coello,  Alonzo  Sanchez.     Queen  Anna  of  Spain. 

A  fair  enough  sample  of  the  rather  hard  drawing 
of  Sanchez  Coello  with  his  insistence  on  ornamental 
truth  rather  than  structural  truth.  The  figure  is 
practically  an  embroidered  robe  flattened  on  a  grey 
ground.  The  lady  herself  is  somewhat  rigid  in 
the  head  and  hand  as  though  held  in  some  beauti- 
ful iron  casing.  No.  597  is  another  illustration  of 
this  insistent  detail.  It  is  good  work  of  its  kind 
but  puts  too  much  stress  on  features  of  the  portrait 
that  should  be  subordinated. 

646.    Cornelisz  van  Oostsanen,  Jacob.     St.  Jerome. 

*  These  altar  wings  have  been  so  much  repainted  that 


COSTA,  LORENZO  27 

it  is  difficult  to  get  an  idea  of  their  quality  or  their 
painter.  The  embroidered  robes  are  the  best-pre- 
served portions  of  the  wings  and  they  are  very 
handsome.  The  ground  at  the  top  is  raw  from  re- 
painting as  is  the  frame  from  regilding.  There  are 
four  wings  of  the  altar-piece  and  there  are  figures 
of  saints  on  the  reverse  of  them.  Ask  an  attendant 
to  open  the  doors.  The  figures  on  the  inside  are 
most  brilliant  in  colours,  with  wonderful  embroi- 
deries. St.  Jerome  with  donors  on  the  central  panel. 
Fine  landscapes  with  small  figures  show  at  the  back. 

59.   Correggio,  Antonio  Allegri  da.     Ganymede.    It 

has  the  volatile  and  airy  quality  of  Correggio  that 
one  sees  in  his  Parma  frescoes.  There  is  also  his 
spirit  of  gaiety  and  life — his  faun-like  quality. 
The  drawing  is  not  too  good  nor  the  colour  pro- 
nounced, but  there  is  motion,  distance,  air.  It  is 
badly  repainted  in  the  landscape  and  elsewhere. 
Notice  the  shadow  on  the  Ganymede's  leg  for 
wholesale  repainting. 

64.   7o.     Here  is   an   illustration  of   Correggio's 

*  strength  as  distinguished  from  the  mere  prettiness 
that  characterises  so  many  of  his  easel  pictures. 
The  figure  of  lo  has  been  much  injured  by  abrasion, 
but  it  must  be  apparent  to  the  most  unobservant 
that  there  is  still  superb  mastery  of  form  in  the 
arms,  shoulders,  back,  thighs,  and  leg  of  this  figure. 
What  a  splendid  creature  she  is!  You  do  not  feel 
that  she  is  doll-like  but  rather  massive  and  sibyl- 
line. The  figure  is  almost  white  and  for  a  foil  the 
cloud  is  grey  and  the  landscape  brown. 

85.    Costa,     Lorenzo.      Portrait    of    a     Woman.     It 

wants  in  modelling  and  has  perhaps  been  over- 
cleaned.  The  face,  neck,  and  chest  are  now  rather 


28  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

chalky.  There  is  a  frail  Francia  landscape  with 
it.  The  portrait  was  probably  never  very  good 
and  yet  it  was  thought  of  such  merit  that  at  one 
time  it  was  put  down  to  Raphael!  It  is  probably 
by  some  Costa  follower.  The  catalogue  queries  it. 

770lCoxie,    Michiel    van.     Paradise    and    the    Fall. 

771  j  The  wings  of  an  altar-piece  which  in  their  original 
setting  and  before  their  repainting  might  have  been 
of  considerable  excellence.  There  is  good  drawing 
about  them  and  the  landscapes  are  effective.  Pos- 
sibly the  grey  look  of  the  panels  is  due  to  repainting. 

1452.  Cranach  the  Elder,  Lucas.     The  Stag  Hunt. 

The  work  does  not  speak  so  loudly  for  Cranach 
himself  as  for  his  workshop.  The  landscape  is  too 
crude  and  the  trees  too  perfunctory  in  their  doing. 
No.  1468  is  in  the  same  category.  Compare  them 
with  the  trees  and  deer  in  No.  1462  or  even  in  the 
copy,  No.  1463. 

1453.    St.  Jerome  and  St.  Leopold.    Two  small  panels 

done  with  much  skill  and  with  fine  results  of  colour. 
The  Cranachs  here  at  Vienna  are  many  but  not 
very  good.    These  two  panels  are,  perhaps,  the 
best  of  them. 

1460.    Portraits  of  Three  Girls.     Neither  the  drawing 

nor  the  colour  seems  to  have  the  quality  that  be- 
longs to  the  Elder  Cranach  as  shown  here  in  Nos. 
1453  and  1454.  This  has  something  the  appear- 
ance of  a  school  piece  though  it  may  be  a  genuine 
enough  Cranach. 

1455.   Portrait  of  a  Man.    Very  simply  drawn  and 

painted  without  splurge  or  pretence  or  display. 
The  painter  did  his  work  carefully  and  for  the  sake 
of  a  likeness  rather  than  to  show  how  clever  he 


DAVID,  GERARD  29 

could  be  with  pencil  or  brush.    There  is  no  osten- 
tation about  it. 

1459.  Adam  and  Eve.  This  is  very  beautiful  out- 
line drawing  resulting  in  grace,  strength,  and  purity. 
The  background  is  formal  but  very  good,  and  quite 
different  from  that  in  the  hunting  pictures  hanging 
near  it. 

1458.   Judith.    It  is  good  work,  but  one  has  seen 

other  things  by  Cranach  more  engaging  as  form  and 
colour.    The  hair  is  prettily  done. 

1462.   Paradise.    Compare  this  landscape  with  that 

*  in  the  hunting  pictures  (Nos.  1452, 1468),  especially 
in  the  trees  and  the  rocks  high  up  at  the  left,  and 
two  different  hands  will  be  recognised.  This  Para- 
dise is  the  work  of  the  elder  Cranach.  The  figures 
are  his  and  even  the  deer  are  a  different  tale  from 
those  in  the  hunting  pictures.  The  figures  are  scat- 
tered and  the  composition  is  not  well  held  together, 
but  the  landscape  holds  and,  after  all,  the  figures 
are  little  more  than  colour  spots  upon  it  or  in  it. 

626.  David,  Gerard.  Altar-Piece.  It  is  in  three  parts 
with  figures  on  the  reverse  of  the  wings.  The  cen- 
tral panel  shows  the  archangel  St.  Michael  over- 
coming Satan  and  his  cohorts.  The  archangel  is 
calm,  the  demons  much  agitated.  The  garments 
of  St.  Michael  are  rather  fine  in  colour,  but  other- 
wise there  is  little  remarkable  about  the  panel 
though  Mr.  Weale  seems  to  think  it  a  rather  im- 
portant work.  For  ourselves  we  think  it  a  poor 
copy.  The  figures  of  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Anthony 
of  Padua  at  the  sides  are  much  better  done,  have 
more  quality,  as  also  the  figures  on  the  reverse  of 
the  wings. 


30  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

627A.   Nativity.    This  picture  commands  attention 

at  first  because  of  the  unusual  night  scene,  with 
light  emanating  from  the  Child  and  the  angels  de- 
scending toward  the  light,  but  it  does  not  improve 
on  close  acquaintance.  The  work  is  not  particu- 
larly well  done  save  in  the  general  composition, 
light,  and  colour.  The  drawing  and  handling  have 
the  timidity  and  uncertainty  of  a  copy.  Notice 
this  in  the  doing  of  the  angel  wings,  the  Madonna's 
face  and  hair,  the  architectural  reliefs,  the  robes. 
It  is  a  striking  picture  but  possibly  an  old  copy  of 
some  sort.  Originally  the  centre  of  a  triptych  and 
with  a  pointed  top.  Other  versions  elsewhere. 

68.  Dossi,  Dosso.  5*.  Jerome.  The  landscape  seems 
the  best  part  of  the  picture.  It  is  lighted  in  Dossi's 
peculiar  fashion  and  the  work  is  doubtless  by  him. 
The  figure  is  red  and  over-modelled  in  the  muscles. 

68A.    Conversion  of  Saul.     A  new  (1913)  picture 

in  the  gallery  that  looks  much  repainted,  though 
it  may  be  only  flayed  and  may  have  its  high  lights 
over-exposed.  The  horse  and  figure  are  both 
theatrical. 

1442.  Diirer,  Albrecht.  Madonna  and  Child.  What 
*  a  remarkable  characterisation  in  its  exaltation  of 
the  German  peasant  type!  It  is  pathetic  in  its 
earnestness  and  its  homeliness.  How  beautifully 
it  is  drawn !  And  what  charm  as  well  as  skill  in  the 
doing  of  the  head-dress  and  the  hair — even  the 
short  hair  of  the  Child.  As  a  piece  of  colour  it  is 
almost  perfect.  Compare  it,  for  the  delicacy  and 
distinction  of  its  colour,  with  the  brawling  colour 
of  the  Trinity  (No.  1545)  near  at  hand.  Did 
Diirer  paint  it?  It  is  good  enough  for  any  one 
but  it  is  not  precisely  in  Diirer's  style. 


DURER,  ALBRECHT  31 

1443.    The  Emperor  Maximilian  I.     The   head   and 

*  shoulders  with  the  coat  of  arms  and  inscription  at 
the  top  are  well  placed  on  the  panel,  filling  the  space 
rightly  and  making  a  decorative  pattern.    The 
drawing  is  careful,  sure,  literal,  as  though  each 
stroke  of  the  hair,  for  instance,  were  a  model  for  the 
engraver  coming  after.     Yet  with  all  its  scrupulous 
detail  the  portrait  holds  at  a  distance.     The  robe 
is  excellent  in  colour  as  is  the  fur  in  texture.     It  is 
by  all  odds  the  best  portrait  of  Maximilian  in  the 
gallery,  giving  much  more  of  the  emperor  and  ruler 
than  the  Strigel  portraits.    The  superior  air  of  the 
monarch  is  here. 

1444.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  common  enough  type. 

The  panel  is  now  hurt  by  cracking  and  repainting. 
On  the  reverse  of  it  is  a  semi-nude  figure. 

1445.   Adoration  of  the  Trinity.    If  this  picture  were 

*  not   marked  by  its  dreadfully  bright  frame  and 
made  prominent  by  its  pedestal,  one  might  pass  it 
in  the  gallery  without  notice  because  of  its  rather 
garish  colouring.     Almost  every  one  insists  that  it 
is  Diirer's  masterpiece.     But  why?    For  what  rea- 
son?   Is  it  on  account  of  its  colour?    There  is  here 
a  spotting  of  bright  hues  but  no  great  sense  of  col- 
our.   The  blues  are  far  from  pleasant  and  give  a 
cold  look  to  the  picture  that  the  reds  do  not  tem- 
per.    Is  it  because  it  is  good  in  tone?    The  light 
of  it  comes  from  no  one  point  and  is  arbitrary  with 
each  figure.     One  by  one  these  people  in  their 
bright  garments  were  completed  and  put  into  the 
picture,   with   apparently  small  regard  for  their 
mutual  relations.     Light  and  shade  do  not  hold 
them  together.    There  is  ensemble  only  by  virtue 
of  the  composition  and  not  too  much  even  of  that. 


32  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

Is  it  beautiful  in  its  atmosphere?  The  picture 
might  have  been  painted  in  a  vacuum  for  all  the 
air  it  possesses.  There  is  a  decided  lack  of  good 
colour,  light,  air,  and  setting.  With  this  said  it  is 
proper  to  add  that  each  robed  figure  is  quite  per- 
fect in  itself — perfect  in  drawing,  painting,  and 
characterisation.  There  are  fine  types,  splendid 
robes,  brilliant  spots  of  colour  here.  The  work  in 
the  part  or  even  in  the  separate  group  is  excellent. 
What  a  robe,  that  of  the  pope  with  his  back  to  us ! 
What  wonderful  types  are  the  kings  and  warriors 
at  the  right  or  the  saints  and  martyrs  up  at  the 
left!  What  beautiful  angels  at  the  top!  The  fig- 
ure of  Christ  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  the 
small  Christ  on  the  Cross  at  Dresden  (No.  1870) 
and  is  remarkable  in  its  pathos. 

The  more  one  studies  the  picture  close  at  hand 
the  better  and  the  more  wonderful  it  becomes, 
but  when  you  stand  back  from  it  and  try  to  see  it 
as  a  single,  united  effect  it  falls  down.  The  charm- 
ing cubes  of  the  mosaic  are  not  well  put  together. 
Diirer  relied  on  the  circle  of  figures  about  the 
Christ  to  hold  the  groups,  but  that  was  not  suf- 
ficient. Moreover,  the  circle  is  not  flat  on  the 
panel  but  recedes  in  linear  perspective  at  the  top, 
which  lessens  the  value  of  the  top  and  makes  the 
lower  foreground  figures  protrusive.  As  composi- 
tion and  colour  the  picture  is  not  a  success.  Look 
at  the  Diirer  school  piece  (No.  1440),  and  you  will 
notice  that  even  that  is  better  in  colour,  has  more 
oneness  of  effect.  As  realistic  and  beautiful  detail 
the  picture  certainly  is  a  success.  And  that  de- 
scribes Diirer  accurately  enough.  He  was  a  realist 
of  beautiful  facts.  One  of  the  most  interesting 
features  of  the  picture  is  the  landscape  seen  at  the 


DURER,  ALBRECHT  33 

bottom.  The  painter  himself  is  seen  standing  at 
the  right,  beside  the  signature.  Cleaned  and  re- 
painted. 

1446.  Martyrdom  of  the  Ten  Thousand  Christians. 

The  landscape  of  this  picture  lends  an  envelope 
in  which  the  figures  are  placed  with  moderate  suc- 
cess. In  this  respect  the  problem  was  easier  than 
in  the  Trinity  (No.  1445),  where  the  figures  are 
placed  in  a  circle  against  a  sky  that  fails  to  re- 
cede. However,  there  is  still  a  feeling  in  this 
martyr  picture  that  the  figures  set  in  by  virtue  of 
linear  perspective  and  not  by  aerial  perspective. 
There  is  little  atmosphere  in  the  picture  and  very 
little  ensemble  or  singleness  of  effect.  The  work 
is  scattered  and  gathers  interest  only  from  an  ex- 
amination of  the  individual  figures.  These  are, 
of  course,  extremely  well  done.  Notice  the  fore- 
ground characters,  especially  those  at  the  right 
with  the  turbans.  What  a  coat  the  man  on  horse- 
back is  wearing!  What  drawing  in  the  backs  of 
those  above  the  horse's  head !  What  a  figure,  that 
at  the  left,  sagging  down  from  the  cross,  with  the 
ropes  cutting  into  his  flesh  where  the  strain  comes  I 
All  the  figures  are  well  drawn.  The  colour  is  no 
better  than  in  the  Trinity.  The  blues  are  cold, 
and  unity  of  colour  is  not  felt.  How  very  different 
from  the  small  Diirer,  No.  1442!  The  trees  and 
rocks  are  well  done;  the  sky  is  hurt.  Durer  in 
black  is  seen  in  the  centre  of  the  picture.  Done  by 
the  order  of  the  Elector  Frederick  the  Wise,  who 
probably  dictated  the  subject. 

1448.  Portrait  of  Johann  Klebergers.  It  is  a  little 

bizarre  for  all  its  attempt  at  elegance  of  design. 
Moreover,  it  is  weak  in  drawing,  the  face  outline 
being  feeble  and  the  mouth  and  eyes  askew. 


34  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

1447.  — ' — Madonna  and  Child.  How  could  Diirer  ever 
have  put  in  that  outrageous  blue?  It  is  acrid, 
screaming,  false  in  tone.  Compare  with  that  the 
loveliness  of  the  white  head-dress.  What  a  tone  of 
colour  it  has !  How  it  is  drawn  and  painted !  What 
a  face  below  it,  and  what  lovely  hair!  The  Child 
is  a  little  enamel-like  in  the  face  but  well  drawn. 

1048.    Dyck,  Anthony  van.    Portrait  of  Mont  fort.    A 

portrait  with  some  of  the  swagger  air  for  which  Van 
Dyck's  portraits  are  more  or  less  noted,  but  it  is 
not  very  good  in  workmanship.  The  hands  have 
become  blackened  from  dark  underbasing.  The 
chain  is  carelessly  done.  As  for  the  body,  it  is  well 
suggested,  and  the  head  is  well  modelled.  The 
work  seems  hurried  and  hasty. 

1046.    Portrait    of   Francesco    da    Moncada.     Other 

versions  of  this  portrait  are  in  the  Louvre.  They 
are  all  of  about  the  same  quality.  There  is  noth- 
ing remarkable  about  this  one.  It  is  repainted. 

1043.  Samson  and  Delilah.  With  a  forceful,  rather 

pretty  Delilah  and  a  well-drawn  Samson.  The  sur- 
face and  the  texture  painting  are  both  too  smooth, 
and  the  colours  are  too  sweet.  The  blue  at  the 
back  is  entirely  out  of  key.  The  sweetness  of  the 
picture  extends  even  to  the  doing  of  the  armour 
at  the  right  as  well  as  the  drapery  or  the  dog  at 
the  left.  It  is  not  strong  and  suggests  that  Van 
Dyck  turned  over  the  painting  of  it  to  pupils  or 
assistants. 

1039.  The  Blessed  Hermann  Joseph.  It  is  of  about 

the  same  character  and  quality  as  Nos.  1043  and 
1035 — all  of  them  too  merely  pretty  to  be  forceful. 
This  is  not  a  bad  composition,  nor  is  it  badly  drawn, 
but  the  sentiment  of  it  is  a  little  over-done. 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  35 

1035.    Venus  and  Vulcan.     There  is  good  colour  in 

this  picture,  but  the  types  and  the  painting  are 
far  too  saccharine  for  the  cultivated  taste.    One 
always  wonders  about  this  kind  of  Van  Dyck  pic- 
ture (seen  also  in  No.  1039),  wonders  if  Van  Dyck 
really  did  such  work  or  if  he  merely  countenanced 
it  in  his  workshop  and  among  his  helpers  to  the 
extent  of  allowing  it  to  go  out  under  his  name.     It 
is  so  much  weaker  than  his  portraiture  or  such 
works  as  the  Betrayal  of  Christ  at  Madrid  and  the 
St.  Jerome  at  Dresden  that  one  can  with  difficulty 
believe  in  it. 

1040.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  Rosalie.     It  may  be 

passed  by  with  no  great  loss  to  the  passer-by.     It 
has  the  look  of  a  much-repainted  copy. 

1036.    St.  Francis.     Another  version  of  this  picture, 

probably  the  original,  is  in  the  Madrid  Gallery  (No. 
1478).    This  Vienna  picture  is  perhaps  a  copy. 

1033.    Christ  on  the  Cross.     Other  versions  of  this 

picture  are  at  Munich  and  Antwerp.     The  figure  is 
slight  but  effectively  drawn  and  not  so  blackened 
as  the  Munich  example  (No.  825).     In  common 
with  Nos.  1035,  1039,  and  1043,  it  is  perverted  by 
being  put  under  glass,  which  softens  and  prettifies 
the  surface. 

1034.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Field-Marshal.     The  ar- 
mour seems  fairly  well  done,  but  the  head  and 
face  lack  in  modelling.    Other  versions  at  Windsor 
and  Madrid  but,  as  the  catalogue  states,  with  varia- 
tions.    It  looks  much  repainted  in  the  face. 

1032.    Portrait  of  Prince  Rodokanakis.     A  good  piece 

of  colour  and   an  interesting   personality  in  the 
sitter,  whoever  he  may  be.     The  portrait  is  well 


36  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

painted  and  one  of  the  best  of  the  Van  Dycks  here, 
without  being  his  masterpiece,  however. 

1038.   Prince  Karl  Ludwig.     A  fine  portrait  of   a 

*  young  prince,  done  with  that  nobility  of  pose  and 
look  that  Van  Dyck  knew  so  well  how  to  give  his 
sitters.     The  figure  stands  easily  before  a  green 
curtain  with  a  sky  at  the  back.    Perhaps  the  por- 
trait has  more  of  an  official  air  than  an  intimate 
or  actual  look  about  it.    The  painter  does  not 
forget  that  he  has  a  young  prince  for  a  sitter  and 
royalty  back  of  him  that  must  be  pleased.    The 
picture  is  extremely  well  drawn  and  painted.    The 
canvas  is  pieced  out  at  the  top. 

1042.    Portrait  of  Prince  Ruprecht.     A  companion 

*  piece  to  No.  1038,  done  in  the  same  style  and  with 
the  same  elegance  of  pose.     The  personality  is  here, 
perhaps,  a  little  sadder  and  more  poetic,  hence  more 
fetching  with  the  average  visitor  than  No.  1038. 
Exceedingly  well  drawn  and  painted,  with  a  good 
landscape  .and  a  bad  dog.    In  common  with  No. 
1038  it  has  been  added  to  at  the  top  and  somewhat 
repainted.    But  distinction  of  manner  is  still  with 
them — manner,  perhaps,  more  than  style. 

1028.    Portrait  of  the  Countess   Amelia  Sohns.     A 

portrait  with  much  of  the  serene  aristocratic  air 
peculiar  to  Van  Dyek's  art  rather  than  to  his  sit- 
ters. It  is  now,  unhappily,  much  repainted.  The 
hands  and  face  are  hurt  by  it,  and  the  fine  touches 
of  the  brush  are  lost  under  it.  The  figure  is  well 
placed  upon  the  canvas,  with  a  noble  head  and  a 
rich  costume.  The  hair,  the  flowers,  the  ruff  still 
speak  for  its  original  beauty.  Other  Van  Dyck 
portraits  of  this  same  Princess  of  Orange  at  the 
Brera  and  the  Prado. 


EYCK,  JAN  VAN  37 

1051.   Pieta.    It  has  more  life  and  spirit  about  it 

than  such  works  as  No.  1035  though  it  is  by  no 
means  a  marvel  and  a  show.  It  has  been  pretti- 
fied by  retouching  and  the  figure  of  Christ  against 
the  white  sheet  has  now  lost  in  forcefulness  by 
the  changed  value  of  the  white.  The  Magdalen  is 
graceful  and  so,  too,  the  angel. 

1050  \  Portrait  of  a  Man  and  Woman.     These  Van 

1052  J  Dyck  portraits  have  a  Rubens  look  about  them, 
especially  in  the  man — the  better  of  the  two.  The 
head  of  the  man  is  masterful  in  its  drawing  of  the 
hair,  forehead,  eyes,  nose,  mouth,  and  foreshortened 
jaw.  The  hands  are  Rubensesque.  The  figure  is 
well  indicated,  well  set  in  the  frame,  and  has  atmos- 
phere about  it.  Compare  it  with  Rubens's  own 
portrait  in  the  next  room.  The  portrait  of  the 
woman  is  more  of  a  picture  with  its  fine  landscape 
and  perhaps  as  good  as  No.  1050  in  the  character 
of  the  sitter.  The  drawing  of  head  and  hands  (with 
the  curtain  and  costume)  is  excellent.  Unfortu- 
nately, it  is  more  repainted  than  the  portrait  of  the 
man  and  has  a  little  of  that  pink-and-white  look 
that  one  associates  with  the  cleaning  room.  What 
very  handsome  hands! 

1053.   Portrait   of    Wildens.     An   excellent   portrait 

with  a  finely  drawn  head.  The  character  is  attrac- 
tive. Said  to  be  a  likeness  of  Wildens,  who  is  sup- 
posed to  have  painted  so  many  of  the  landscapes  in 
Rubens's  figure  pictures.  How  beautifully  certain 
parts  of  it  (the  moustache,  for  example)  are  brushed 
in!  A  good  background.  Another  version  of  this 
portrait  at  Cassel  (No.  118). 

624.    Eyck,    Jan   van.      Portrait   of  Nicolas   Albergati. 

It  has  every  appearance  of  Van  Eyck's  work  save 


38  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

in  the  surface.  It  has  been  much  injured  by  re- 
painting. Originally,  no  doubt,  it  was  a  fine  head. 
You  can  still  see  the  large  modelling  of  it,  the  fine 
structure  of  the  skull,  and  the  frame  of  the  face. 

625.    Portrait  of  Jan  van  Leeuwe.     The  Van  Eyck 

look  is  here  as  in  No.  624,  but  again  it  is  so  hurt  by 
repainting  that  one  can  form  no  accurate  judgment 
about  it. 

409.  Farinato,  Paolo.  Ascension  of  Christ.  The  at- 
titude of  the  Christ  is  weak  and  the  gesture  of  the 
right  arm  feeble.  Notice  the  feeling  of  flight  up- 
ward. The  reddish-yellow  colour  is  rich  though 
the  whole  picture  is  a  little  coarse  in  fibre.  For- 
merly attributed  to  Paolo  Veronese  and  now,  doubt- 
fully, to  Farinato. 

385.   St.  Sebastian.     The  modelling  is  exaggerated 

and  the  right  hand  is  bad,  but  in  other  respects 
the  picture  is  very  good.  With  a  dark  sky.  For- 
merly given  to  Paolo  Veronese. 

390.    Lucretia.     It  is  a  little  weak  and  pretty — too 

weak  for  Paolo  Veronese,  to  whom  it  was  formerly 
ascribed,  so  it  has  been  passed  on  to  Farinato — the 
present  catch-all  for  inferior  Paolos. 

92A.    Florentine  School.      Stoning  of  St.  Stephen. 

The  picture  is  fine  in  colour.  Formerly  ascribed 
to  Gentile  da  Fabriano.  It  is  now  given  to  the 
Florentine  School  but  with  a  query.  No  one  knows 
where  it  belongs. 

47.    Francia,  Francesco.    Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints. 

*  A  fine,  large  altar-piece.  The  Madonna  seems 
pushed  up  high  and  looks  a  little  posed  on  her  throne. 
Apparently  she  is  thinking  very  little  about  the 


GEERTGEN  TOT  SINT  JANS  39 

Child,  as  she  turns  away  her  head.  Still  the  senti- 
ment is  right  enough.  St.  Catherine  at  the  side  is 
excellent  in  every  way.  The  trees,  spread  in  pat- 
terns against  the  sky,  are  frail,  but  decorative,  and 
the  landscape  is  simple.  The  colour  is  cool  in  pre- 
dominant blues  and  greens. 

46.    Franciabigio   (Francesco   Bigi).    Holy  Family. 

A  square  composition  with  the  figures  pushed  to 
the  left.  It  is  poor  in  colour  but  rather  nice  in  sen- 
timent. The  faces  are  porcelain-like  and  a  little 
sweet.  The  landscape  looks  as  though  painted 
upon  glass,  the  trees  are  thin,  and  the  ground  frail. 
The  Madonna's  robe,  legs,  and  foot  suggest  Raph- 
ael. The  picture  has  been  ascribed  to  Andrea  del 
Sarto,  to  Bugiardini,  to  Pontormo,  but  it  seems 
rightly  placed  under  Franciabigio.  It  is  of  the 
same  spirit  with  the  Madonna  of  the  Well,  in  the 
Tribune  of  the  Uffizi  (No.  1125),  there  ascribed  to 
Franciabigio. 

644.  Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans  (Gerard  of  Haarlem). 
*  Burning  the  Bones  of  John  the  Baptist.  This 
and  No.  645  are  parts  of  an  altar-piece  done  for 
a  Haarlem  church,  probably  by  Geertgen.  The 
figures  and  landscapes  correspond  to  other  works 
put  down  to  him.  The  figures  are  not  small  enough 
to  be  subordinate  to  the  landscape  and  not  large 
enough  to  make  a  figure  composition  by  themselves. 
Hence,  in  spite  of  the  groups  and  their  disposition, 
there  is  a  feeling  of  emptiness  in  the  composition 
as  a  whole.  Taken  separately,  both  figures  and 
landscape  are  excellent.  Notice  the  group  at  the 
right  with  the  strong  though  grotesque  faces,  the 
fine  velvets  and  brocades,  the  rich  gold  work.  The 
group  in  black  caps  and  dresses  is  equally  forceful. 


40  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

The  heads  are  strong.     A  little  injured  by  the  split- 
ting of  the  wood. 

645.   Deposition.    This  is  a  better  composition  than 

*  No.  644  because  the  figures  are  larger  and  dominate 
the  landscape.  The  stiff  figure  of  Christ  on  the 
white  sheet  is  impressive  and  the  women  kneeling 
at  the  head  are  tragic  in  their  grief.  The  outlines 
are  firm  and  sharp,  the  drapery  angular  in  its  folds, 
the  colour  excellent.  Colour  does  not  mean  bril- 
liant colour,  necessarily.  What  a  fine  landscape 
at  the  back!  A  little  injured. 

16.  Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli).  The  Three 
**  Wise  Men.  This  picture  gives  one  a  somewhat 
better  idea  of  Giorgione  than  most  of  the  pictures 
attributed  to  him,  notwithstanding  it  was  finished 
by  Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  according  to  the  Ano- 
nimo,  and  has,  indeed,  some  of  the  smooth  look 
peculiar  to  Sebastiano.  The  figures  are  large, 
graceful,  well  posed,  well  drawn,  with  good  feet  and 
hands.  Again,  the  robes  are  large  in  their  folds, 
the  light-and-shade  is  broad  and  true,  and  the  colour 
is  excellent.  Moreover,  the  landscape  is  what  we 
might  expect  from  Giorgione.  It  is  not  at  all  like 
the  landscape  in  the  Rustic  Concert  of  the  Louvre. 
The  foreground  is  slashed  with  shadow,  the  back- 
ground is  lighted.  The  left  foreground  is,  perhaps, 
too  dark  in  its  brown  shadow  but  the  figures  at 
the  right  are  brought  out  well  by  contrast.  Again 
there  is  a  contrast  in  the  foliage  which  at  the  right 
is  broadly  handled  but  at  the  left  thinly  traced 
against  the  sky.  Notice  the  beautiful  harmony  of 
the  red,  green,  and  yellow  robes — hues  that  are 
faintly  repeated  in  the  landscape  and  sky.  The 
picture  is  injured  by  repainting  in  the  hands  and 


GIORGIONE  (GIORGIO  BARBARELLI)  41 

faces  and  has  darkened  with  time  and  much  var- 
nish. A  similar  work  in  the  Fitz- William  Museum 
at  Cambridge,  England,  is  put  down  to  the  Vene- 
tian School  (No.  138). 

63.    5*.  Sebastian.    The  possibilities  are  that  this 

**  picture  represents  neither  an  Apollo  nor  a  St.  Sebas- 
tian but  just  a  plain  "head  of  a  boy  holding  an 
arrow  in  his  hand/'  as  the  Anonimo  saw  and  de- 
scribed it  in  the  house  of  Messer  Giovanni  Ram, 
at  Venice,  in  1531.  The  possibilities  again  are 
that  the  picture  is  neither  by  Correggio  (so  attrib- 
uted in  1912)  nor  Cariani,  though  the  latter  is  cer- 
tainly a  closer  guess  than  the  former.  The  Anonimo 
said  that  the  picture  he  described  was  by  "  Giorgio 
di  Castelfranco."  Is  not  this  the  same  picture? 
The  attribution  to  Correggio  needs  no  discussion 
since  it  has  been  abandoned.  It  was  always  un- 
believable. Mr.  Berenson  thinks  the  picture  by 
Cariani,  in  his  finer  mood,  following  Giorgione. 
But  did  Cariani  ever  possess  the  tenderness,  the 
refinement  of  feeling,  the  delicacy  of  touch,  the 
skill  of  hand  to  do  such  work  as  this?  Was  he  not 
usually  coarse-grained,  of  the  earth  earthy,  an  imi- 
tator of  Giorgione's  types  but  without  Giorgione' s 
mind  or  feeling?  Where  does  he  reach  such  emo- 
tional heights  and  depths  as  in  this  so-called  St. 
Sebastian?  On  the  contrary,  think  of  this  refined 
St.  Sebastian  in  connection  with  works  of  Giorgione, 
such  as  the  head  of  the  Sleeping  Venus  at  Dresden, 
the  portrait  at  Berlin  (No.  12A),  the  melancholy 
portrait  at  Budapest  (No.  94),  the  head  of  the 
Castelfranco  Madonna,  and  how  well  it  agrees 
with  them  in  feeling  and  in  spirit!  The  Giorgione 
at  Hampton  Court  of  the  Shepherd  with  the 
Flute  (referred  to  by  the  Anonimo  as  a  Giorgione 


42  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

in  the  same  breath  with  this  St.  Sebastian)  is  less 
delicate,  more  robust,  more  faun-like,  and  per- 
haps nearer  to  the  soil;  but  in  other  respects  it 
is  in  agreement  again  with  this  St.  Sebastian. 
Compare  the  two  (by  photographs,  if  not  other- 
wise) and  notice  how  closely  they  seem  to  meet 
the  Anonimo's  attributions — compare  them  for 
their  similar  placing  upon  the  given  panel,  for 
light-and-shade,  for  colour,  for  type,  for  similarities 
of  cranium,  hair,  brows,  for  the  same  heavy  eyelids, 
dilated  nose,  and  cupid's-bow  mouth.  And  do  not 
forget  to  compare  the  hands  for  the  similarity  in 
the  loose  index-finger.  But  this  allowance  should 
be  made.  The  Hampton  Court  picture  has  been 
repainted;  the  Vienna  picture  has  been  skinned. 
The  result  is  that  the  former  looks  muffled  in  the 
contours  where  the  latter  is  a  little  sharp.  The 
St.  Sebastian  is  now  hard  in  the  drawing  of  the 
nose,  brows,  eyelids.  The  hair  has  also  darkened 
into  the  background.  The  Hampton  Court  picture 
has  been  repeated,  so  far  as  the  type  goes,  in  a  pic- 
ture here  in  the  Vienna  Gallery — the  David  (No. 
21)  hanging  near  at  hand.  It  is  probably  a  re- 
painted original  by  Giorgione,  and  not  a  copy,  as 
the  catalogue  suggests;  but  in  any  event  it  may 
be  used  for  comparison  in  a  general  way  with  the 
St.  Sebastian.  It  is  of  coarser  fibre  mentally  and 
emotionally,  but  there  are  close  resemblances  in 
such  features  as  the  eyes,  nose,  mouth,  hair,  and 
the  like.  Again,  comparison  may  be  made  with 
the  Giorgione  here,  the  Wise  Men  (No.  16).  But 
the  true  test  is  to  carry  this  St.  Sebastian,  visually 
or  in  photograph,  before  all  the  Giorgiones  of  all 
the  galleries.  Especially  should  it  be  compared 
with  the  two  supreme  Giorgiones — the  Venus  at 


GIORGIONE  (AFTER)  43 

Dresden  and  the  Castelfranco  Madonna.  It  will 
be  found  to  agree  with  them  in  mind,  in  spirit,  in 
style,  in  method. 

Whether  the  picture  be  by  Cariani  or  Giorgione 
is,  perhaps,  less  important  than  the  recognition 
that  it  is  an  excellent  picture  possessed  of  real 
intrinsic  poetry  and  beauty.  It  may  be  just  a 
shade  over-refined  in  sentiment,  carried  a  bit  too 
far  in  sensitiveness  of  spirit.  How  soulful  it  is, 
even  plaintive!  With  such  a  type  Correggio  is 
raving,  excited,  purely  human;  Gariani  is  coarse 
and  at  times  brutal;  Giorgione  is  idyllic,  pastoral, 
romantic.  But  in  this  picture  we  have  something 
from  Giorgione  that  is  more  profound,  something 
emotional  and  suggestive  of  the  Christian  martyr. 
The  recognition  of  this  feeling  possibly  led  to  the 
title  of  St.  Sebastian,  which  otherwise  seems  in- 
appropriate. [When  this  note  was  written  (1912) 
the  picture  was  attributed  to  Correggio.  It  is  now 
given  to  Giorgione  on  the  frame.] 
21.  Giorgione  (after).  David.  It  has  the  appear- 
*  ance  of  an  original  Giorgione  that  has  suffered  from 
coarse  and  heavy  repainting.  The  hair  has  been 
over-painted  and  the  shadows  wrecked.  Its  re- 
semblance to  the  Shepherd  with  the  Flute  at  Hamp- 
ton Court  has  been  noted  many  times,  but  the 
Hampton  Court  picture  is  worse  off  for  repainting 
than  this.  If  the  repaintings  were  removed  from 
both  pictures  an  identical  subject  might  be  dis- 
closed. There  is  still  a  largeness  of  handling  and 
drawing  apparent  in  this  Vienna  David  that  seems 
to  exempt  it  from  the  group  of  Giorgione  copies. 
It  is  too  free  for  a  copy,  too  large  in  the  feeling  for 
form.  As  a  Giorgione  (original  or  copy),  it  might 
be  compared  with  the  St.  Sebastian  (No.  63),  put 


44  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

down  to  Giorgione,  hanging  near  it.  They  are  not 
far  apart  as  regards  their  painter,  though  the  first 
has  been  repainted  and  the  second  has  been  skinned. 
Notice  the  resemblances  still  in  the  heavy  eyelids, 
the  brows,  the  flat  forehead  coming  down  to  the 
brows,  the  poise  of  the  head,  the  placing  of  the 
hair  on  the  forehead,  the  straight  nose,  the  bowed 
mouth,  the  rather  sharp  chin.  They  are  both  in- 
teresting pictures  and  possibly  Giorgione  was  re- 
sponsible for  both. 

629.  Goes,  Hugo  van  der.  Deposition.  There  are 
various  guesses  at  its  authorship  recorded  in  the 
catalogue.  It  seems  to  be  by  a  follower  of  Roger 
van  der  Weyden,  having  some  of  his  tragic  quality, 
his  colour,  and,  in  measure,  his  types.  A  little 
crude  in  the  blues  and  whites.  Another  version  in 
the  Palffy  Collection  in  the  Budapest  Gallery. 

631.    Adam  and  Eve.     Part  of  a  diptych  with  No. 

629,  and  probably  by  the  same  hand  as  No.  629, 
though  a  better  and  more  interesting  picture,  es- 
pecially in  the  landscape.  How  well  the  apple-tree 
is  given!  On  the  reverse  was  formerly  the  figure 
of  St.  Genevieve  in  grisaille,  now  separately  framed 
beside  it  (No.  630). 

754.  Gossart,  Jan  (Mabuse).  St.  Lake  Painting  the 
Virgin.  It  is  the  fashion  of  the  moment  to  grow 
enthusiastic  over  the  small  work  and  fine  finish  of 
Gossart,  but  the  fashion  is  hardly  well  founded. 
The  painter  is  too  small  mentally,  too  mechanical 
and  wanting  in  feeling  or  emotion,  too  mannered  in 
his  exact  technique,  too  finical  in  his  small  details. 
There  is,  of  course,  good  work  in  this  picture — fine 
heads,  hands,  robes,  architecture — but  the  picture 
lacks  in  breadth,  serenity,  poise.  The  sentiment 


HOLBEIN  THE  YOUNGER,  HANS  45 

put  into  the  Madonna  is  true  enough.     Another 
version  of  this  picture  at  Prague. 

755.  Madonna  and  Child.  The  motive  of  a  Ma- 
donna seated  in  an  architectural  niche  was  repeated 
several  times  by  Gossart,  and  with  considerable 
effect,  notably  at  Munich  (No.  155).  This  exam- 
ple, however,  is  rather  too  pretty  in  colour  and  sur- 
face, too  mannered  in  drawing,  too  trifling  in  feeling. 

1313.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  Landscape.  An  excellent  land- 
scape especially  in  light  and  colour.  It  is  easily 
painted  and  represents  Van  Goyen  at  his  best. 
The  sky  is  a  little  injured. 

272.  Greco,  II  (Domenico  Theotocopuli).  Adora- 
tion of  Kings.  This  picture  was  formerly  ascribed 
to  Bassano  but  it  seems  to  be  neither  a  Bassano 
nor  a  Greco.  It  is  too  white  in  the  light  and  has 
no  quality  in  the  colour  despite  the  apple-green 
robe.  Nor  is  it  well  drawn.  Whoever  did  it  left 
something  to  be  desired.  II  Greco  was  certainly 
influenced  by  Leandro  Bassano,  but  this  seems  a 
poor  illustration  of  it. 

1297.  Hals,  Frans.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  This  portrait 
is  so  inferior  in  the  drawing  of  the  eyes,  the  over- 
drawing of  the  mouth,  the  painting  of  the  hair  and 
hat,  the  quality  of  the  colour  that  one  may  be  par- 
doned for  thinking  it  merely  some  poor  school 
piece. 

696.  Hemessen,  Jan  van.  St.  Jerome.  With  some 
large  drawing  and  strength  of  type  that  belong  to 
Hemessen.  He  does  not  show  to  the  best  advan- 
tage in  this  picture  nor  in  Nos.  699  and  701. 

1479.    Holbein    the    Younger,    Hans.    Portrait   of  a 
*        Man.     It  is  smooth  in  the  flesh,  the  plum-coloured 


46  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

silk,  the  black  hat,  the  blue  ground.  The  surfaces 
are  a  little  porcelain-like;  the  drawing  of  the  face 
and  hands  is  very  clean-cut  and  precise;  the  folds 
of  the  cloth,  the  lines  of  the  collar,  strings,  and  all 
that  have  great  accuracy.  The  colour  is  attrac- 
tive, even  rich,  and  as  for  the  character  it  is  abso- 
lute in  its  sense  of  reality — its  realisation  of  truth. 
A  fine  portrait. 

1480.    Portrait  of  John  Chambers.     A  superb  piece 

**      of  characterisation — the  drawing  of  the  face  be- 
ing really  astonishing  in  giving  the  flabby,  sunken 
cheeks  and  drawn  lines  of  an  old  man.     Notice  the 
doing  of  the  eyes  and  mouth,  the  drag-down  of  the 
hat  on  the  head,  the  shadow  of  the  neck.    The  coat 
and  fur  collar,  with  the  well-drawn  hands,  fill  up 
the  rest  of  the  pattern.     With  a  dark  blue-green 
ground.     A  fine  portrait,  placed  on  the  panel  al- 
most in   profile   and   similar  in  pose  to  the  Sir 
Thomas  More  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2717). 

1481.  — Portrait  of  Jane  Seymour.    It  is  almost  stencil- 

*       like  in  its  precision  and  smoothness.     The  painter 

has,  perhaps,  put  too  much  effort  into  the  details 
of  costume.  In  this  respect  the  portrait  is  not 
unlike  the  Anne  of  Cleves  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2718). 
Indeed,  the  two  portraits  are  of  a  kind  in  their  con- 
ception and  workmanship.  They  are  not  so  strong 
as  the  Holbein  portraits  of  men  and  perhaps  for 
that  reason  were  made  more  ornamental  in  costume. 
But  the  Jane  Seymour  is  a  notable  portrait.  What 
simplicity  in  the  pose  and  dignity  in  the  carriage! 
A  fine,  frank  type.  The  background  wants  in  col- 
our. 

1482.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     Evidently  some  sort  of 

companion  piece  to  No.  1484  but  with  less  charm 


HOLBEIN,  SCHOOL  OF  47 

about  it.    The  colour  scheme  is  not  subtle.    It  is 
very  accurately  done. 

1484.   Portrait  of  a  Lady.    A  charming  portrait  of 

a  bottle-nosed  lady  with  sad  eyes.     Beautiful  in 
the  whites  as  related  to  the  flesh  colour.    On  a  blue 
ground. 

1483.   Portrait  of  a  Lady.     A  perfect  little  portrait 

*  in  almost  every  way.     It  is  exact  and  truthful  to 
the  last  degree.     Done  in  a  manner  similar  to  No. 
1479.     Look  at  the  head-dress  and  the  sleeves  for 
accuracy  and  the  hands  and  face  for  truthful  rep- 
resentation.   It  would  be  hard  to  change  it  with- 
out harming  it.     It  is  miniature  work  but  quite 
right  for  its  kind.     Some  of  these  small  portraits 
may  not  be  by  Holbein,  but  they  are  excellent, 
nevertheless.     A  blue-green  ground. 

1485.    Portrait  of  Dirck  Tybis.    Just  as  accurate  in 

its  drawing  as,  say,  No.  1479  or  1480,  though  less 
sharp  in  outline.     It  is  a  little  smoother,  more 
rounded,  and  softer  than  the  other  examples.    Also 
it  is  more  fussy  in  the  papers  and  still-life  on  the 
table,  to  its  disadvantage.    These  articles  seem 
spotty,  and  the  hands  add  nothing  to  the  picture. 
Notice  the  texture  of  the  fur  collar.     A  dark-blue 
ground. 

1489.    Holbein  the  Younger,  School  of.    Portrait  of 

*  a  Woman.     Let  not  the  attribution  to  the  "  School 
of  Holbein"  mislead  here  nor  the  roundness  of  the 
type  discourage.     This  is  a  very  good  portrait. 
It  is  beautifully  drawn  and  painted  throughout. 
Notice  the  hair,  head-gear,  chain,  and  dress.    There 
is  a  saint's  halo  about  the  head  and  a  plaintive 
sentiment  about  the  face.    The  mouth  is  a  little 
misplaced  but  that  is  a  slight  matter. 


48  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

1299A.    Hooch,  Pieter  de.     The  Mother.    Averycharm- 

*  ing  piece  of  colour  all  through.     The  mother,  in 
her  white  head-dress  and  variegated  costume,  is 
very  attractive,  though  her  arm  is  a  little  hard  from 
too  much  cleaning.     Notice  the  fire,  the  pot,  the 
mantel.     The  maid  and  the  little  child  tugging  at 
her  hand  to  go  out  of  doors  are  subordinated  in 
light  and  colour  but  happily  given.     See  the  light 
through  the  door,  how  exactly  true  in  value  it  is! 
The  lower  half  of  the  door  is  again  in  perfect  keep- 
ing with  the  shadow  of  it  upon  the  floor.     How  flat 
and  smooth  the  flooT! 

1087.    Jordaens,  Jacob.     Feast  of  the  Bean  King.     The 

same  theme  is  shown  elsewhere,  at  the  Antwerp 
Gallery,  for  instance.  This  example  seems  less 
satisfactory  than  usual,  being  without  any  great 
sparkle  of  light  or  snap  of  colour.  It  is  dull.  In 
execution  it  is  timid,  as  though  done  by  some  pupil 
copying  the  master. 

1438.    Kulmbach,  Hans  von.     Coronation  of  the  Ma- 

*  donna.     A  panel  that  has  been  stained  and  other- 
wise hurt  but  is  still  a  remarkable  performance. 
The  Madonna  is  in  the  centre  and  above  her  an 
arch  of  figures  representing  the  Father,  the  Christ, 
and  angels.     At  the  bottom  are  donors  with  angels. 
The  colour  of  it  is  excellent,  but  the  spirit  of  it  is 
even  better.     It  is  full  of  fine  feeling.     Even  the 
little  angels  have  it.     The  drawing  is  wanting  at 
times  in  the  hands  and  heads  (notice  the  arms  of  the 
Christ),  but  the  spirit  is  so  right  and  true  that  one 
passes  over  the  minor  defects. 

1438A }  The    Annunciation.     Probably    two    panels 

1438s  /  from  an  altar-piece.     They  have  not  only  deep 
feeling  but  considerable  decorative  quality.     The 


LOTTO,  LORENZO  49 

Madonna  is  only  a  peasant  girl  and  is  almost  piti- 
ful in  her  ignorance  and  dulness.  The  angel  is, 
perhaps,  more  sophisticated. 

221.    Licinio,    Bernardino.     Portrait    of    Ottaviano 

Grim  am.  The  face  is  small  and  pinched,  and  the 
red  dress  is  crude  in  the  pattern.  The  whole  work 
is  hard  and  unyielding.  See  also  No.  22lA,  a  new 
portrait,  and  fairly  good. 

214.  Lotto,    Lorenzo.     Madonna,   Child,   and   Saints. 

*  A  beautiful  Lotto  in  its  refined  sentiment  and  in 
the  loveliness  of  the  types.  The  Madonna  (under 
half  shadow  as  regards  her  face)  and  the  angel  back 
of  her  are  very  attractive  in  their  sensitiveness, 
their  grace,  their  personal  beauty.  The  robes  are 
a  little  uneasy,  and  the  lower  part  of  the  Madonna 
is  confused  and  twisted.  The  figures  at  the  right 
are  simpler  and  truer  in  drawing.  St.  Catherine 
kneels  well,  and  the  green  note  of  her  dress  is  force- 
ful. The  dress  of  the  Madonna  seems  too  blue, 
as  also  the  landscape.  The  brown  foreground  does 
not  fit  into  the  blue  background  very  smoothly, 
yet  the  colour  scheme  as  a  whole  is  harmonious. 
There  is  the  usual  tale  of  the  picture  being  injured 
by  cleaning.  But  look  again  at  the  beautiful  angel. 

215.    Portrait  of  a  Man  with  an  Animal's  Paw  in 

His  Hand.     The  picture  is  marred  by  the  line  of 
fringe  at  the  top  of  the  canvas  but  in  other  re- 
spects is  excellent  in  both  characterisation  and  col- 
our.    The  character  is  girlish,  almost  like  the  angel 
in  No.  214 — not  forceful  or  positive,  but  sensitive 
to  the  last  degree.     The  hands,  too,  are  delicate 
and  have  a  cramped  look  peculiar  to  Lotto.     The 
black  dress  and  the  green  and  red  of  the  accessories 
make  a  pleasant  colour  scheme.     It  has  been  re- 


60  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

painted  in  the  hands  and  face — the  nails  of  the 
hands  have  disappeared  under  the  overlaid  paint. 
Formerly  ascribed  to  Correggio. 

220.    Portrait  of  a  Man  in  Three  Views.     Something 

that  was  done  perhaps  for  the  use  of  a  sculptor  as 
an  aid  in  modelling.  It  is  rather  heavy  in  more 
ways  than  one.  The  personality  is  not  engaging, 
and  the  face  is  more  remarkable  for  dull  animal 
wonder  than  anything  else.  The  portrait  shows 
few  characteristics  of  Lotto's  technique,  and  one 
misses  his  spirit  completely.  The  Joseph  in  No. 
214  is  of  a  similar  type  and  workmanship. 

22.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.  The  face  is  care- 
fully drawn,  the  eyes  well  set  in  the  head,  the  mouth 
slightly  ajar  after  the  Diirer  manner.  The  white 
at  the  back  of  the  figure  has  little  quality,  and  the 
black  hat  and  dress  are  flatly  outlined  upon  it. 
This  is  hardly  characteristic  of  Lotto  or  the  Vene- 
tians but  is  more  like  the  Germans.  The  picture 
looks  Venetian,  but  its  painter  was  influenced  from 
the  north.  Formerly  attributed  to  Jacopo  de' 
Barbari,  which  is  a  better  attribution  than  Lotto, 
who  never  painted  or  drew  in  the  manner  of  this 
portrait.  Compare  it  with  Nos.  215  and  214. 

22A.   Portrait.     A  fine  type  and,  all  told,  a  beau- 

*  tiful  portrait.  There  is  much  colour  charm  in  the 
flesh-notes,  the  yellow  hair,  the  red  dress,  and  the 
green  curtain.  The  dress  is  rather  flat,  the  cur- 
tain well  done.  The  face  is  hurt  by  repainting. 
It  is  hardly  by  Lotto. 

86.    Luini,  Bernardino.     The  Daughter  of  Herodias. 

A  tale  of  grace,  sentiment,  and  weakness  that  is 
often  told  by  Luini.  Here  it  is  somewhat  exagger- 


MANTEGNA,  ANDREA  51 

ated  in  its  sentiment.  The  green  is  unhappy  in 
quality,  being  too  acrid,  too  rasping.  Nos.  82  and 
87  are  no  better  and  are  much  hurt. 

82.  Christ  Bearing  the  Cross.  The  picture  shows 

the  sentiment  peculiar  to  Luini  and  the  Leonardo 
followers  in  general.  It  was  formerly  ascribed  to 
Leonardo,  then  to  Solario;  but  it  is  weak  enough 
for  Luini. 

1427.  Maler  zu  Schwaz,  Hans.  Ferdinand  I.  The 
portrait  has  changed  names  in  both  sitter  and 
painter.  A  good  portrait,  perhaps  a  little  coarse  in 
its  doing  but  giving  the  character  of  the  man  with 
force.  The  painter  is  sometimes  catalogued  as 
"Hans  Maler  von  Ulm." 

1473.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Apparently  done  by  the 

same  hand  that  did  No.  1427.  The  hair,  white 
neck-cloth,  and  outline  drawing  are  similar  in  work- 
manship. It  is  coarse  but  effective  work. 

81.  Mantegna,  Andrea.  St.  Sebastian.  Perhaps  the 
*  figure  is  a  little  over-modelled  in  the  shoulders 
and  chest  and  a  little  slender  in  the  legs,  but  it  is  a 
fine  figure,  nevertheless,  well  realised  in  its  quiver- 
ing agony  and  effective  in  its  sentiment.  The 
column  at  the  back  with  the  pilasters  and  broken 
arches,  the  figure  in  relief  in  the  angle,  the  broken 
reliefs  on  the  ground  at  the  left,  the  marble  pave- 
ment are  all  excellent.  The  landscape  at  the  back 
is  in  no  way  inferior  to  the  figure  and  architecture. 
Notice  the  road  and  the  distant  city.  The  same 
subject  on  a  larger  and  grander  scale  appears  in 
the  newly  acquired  Mantegna  at  the  Louvre, 
Paris.  This  Vienna  picture  does  not  live  up  to 
the  Paris  picture,  but  it  is,  by  itself  considered,  a 
notable  work. 


52  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

Master  of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin.  See  Cleve, 
Juste  van. 

764.  Master  of  the  Half-Figure.  Portrait  of  a 
Woman.  It  has  what  has  been  called  a  Clouet 
look  but  is  perhaps  of  Netherland  extraction. 
There  is  a  feeling  about  it  of  refinement  and  ten- 
derness— something  of  the  "eternal  womanly." 
The  face  is  pallid,  perhaps  from  cleaning,  and  the 
contours  of  the  shoulders  are  hard.  The  colour  is 
unusual.  Professor  Wickhoff  thinks  the  painter 
identical  with  Jean  Clouet. 

676.  Master  of  the  Seven  Sorrows  of  the  Virgin. 
Flight  into  Egypt.  There  seems  an  unhappy  mix- 
up  of  expert  ideas  regarding  the  painter  of  certain 
pictures  of  the  Flight  into  Egypt,  showing  the  Ma- 
donna in  blue,  seated  on  a  bank,  with  a  basket  near 
her.  Here  one  finds  an  attribution  to  the  Master 
of  the  Seven  Sorrows  of  the  Virgin;  elsewhere,  at 
Munich,  Berlin,  Brussels,  pictures  with  the  same 
types  and  style  of  work  are  given  to  David,  Patinir, 
and  Isenbrant.  This  Vienna  picture  is  probably 
of  Patinir  origin,  in  company  with  a  number  of 
brown-blue  landscapes  which  are  here  once  more 
confused  by  putting  them  under  the  name  of  Herri 
met  de  Bles.  The  Master  of  the  Seven  Sorrows  of 
the  Virgin  is  thought  by  M.  Hulin  de  Loo  to  be 
identical  with  Isenbrant — which  is  to  say  that  he 
belongs  somewhere  in  the  School  of  Gerard  David. 

603.    Mazo,  Juan  Bautista  del.     The  Artist's  Family. 

A  picture  that  was  long  thought  to  be  by  Velasquez 
but  is  now  assigned  to  his  pupil,  Mazo.  It  is  not 
a  good  picture  for  Velasquez,  but  as  a  Mazo  it  be- 
comes of  some  importance  though  hardly  rising 
to  any  great  distinction.  The  room  is  fairly  well 


METSYS,  JAN  53 

done  if  brownish  in  its  shadows.  The  figures  are 
too  conscious,  too  much  posed,  a  little  black,  and 
ill  drawn  in  the  eyes,  brows,  hands,  legs,  and  feet. 
The  small  figures  at  the  back  hold  their  place  but 
are  awkwardly  arranged.  In  colour  there  is  little 
to  admire.  The  table  at  the  rear  with  the  bust  and 
the  flowers  is  as  good  as  any  part  of  the  picture. 
Injured  by  repainting. 

635.  Memling,  Hans.  Madonna  and  Child.  This 
*  picture  and  its  companion  panels,  Nos.  636,  637, 
638,  make  up  an  important  Memling  triptych — 
the  most  important  of  several  Madonna  triptychs, 
the  other  versions  being  in  London,  Florence,  and 
Worlitz,  as  the  catalogue  indicates.  It  has  Mem- 
ling's  fine  feeling  and  tenderness  and  is  wonderful 
in  its  careful  workmanship  and  its  decorative  de- 
tail. Notice  the  architectural  patterns,  the  arab- 
esque of  fruit,  the  pretty  little  landscapes.  They 
are  all  beautifully  done.  The  two  Johns  of  the 
wings  are  now  put  together  in  one  frame.  They  are 
a  bit  coarsely  done  in  heads,  hands,  and  feet. 
Adam  and  Eve  are  on  the  reverse  of  these  wings 
and  are  now  separately  framed.  It  is  not  possible 
to  say  with  certainty  which  of  the  several  versions 
of  this  triptych  is  the  original.  Weale  thinks 
them  all  done  by  Louis  Boels. 

1370A.  Metsu,  Gabriel.  Noll  Me  Tangere.  It  has  dig- 
nity and  good  drawing  in  the  figures,  but  the  colour 
is  a  bit  sharp,  the  light  dull,  and  the  surfaces  are 
much  too  pretty,  too  much  worked  over.  The 
varnish  makes  the  surface  additionally  glassy.  No. 
1370  is  hardly  by  Metsu. 

693.    Metsys,  Jan.    Lot  and  His  Daughters.    The  work- 
manship here  conforms  to  that  in  pictures  ascribed 


54  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

to  Jan  Metsys  at  Brussels  (Nos.  297,  298),  but  there 
is  nothing  remarkable  about  this  picture  except  its 
superficial  elegance. 

218.  Moretto  of  Brescia.  St.  Justina.  The  figure  of 
**  St.  Justina  is  dignified,  lofty,  majestic — of  a  kind 
and  in  a  class  with  the  St.  Barbara  of  Palma  Vec- 
chio  at  Venice.  What  a  beautiful  dress  she  wears 
and  how  superbly  she  wears  it!  The  whole  pic- 
ture is  of  corresponding  excellence.  It  is  a  pyram- 
idal composition,  the  saint  being  supported  on 
either  side  by  the  donor  and  the  unicorn.  The 
figures  are  well  set  on  the  canvas  and  thoroughly 
well  drawn.  Notice  the  landscape,  the  mountain 
village,  the  mountains  themselves.  The  sky,  light, 
and  silver  tone  are  exactly  right  in  every  way. 
This  is  a  Moretto  masterpiece  than  which  he  never 
did  a  better.  There  is  nothing  finer  elsewhere.  It 
was  given  at  one  time  to  Titian  and  then  to  Por- 
denone,  but  it  belongs  where  it  is  now  placed. 

786A.  Moro,  Antonio.  Queen  Anna  of  Spain.  Impos- 
ing in  size  and  costume  but  a  bit  frail  in  physique 
and  presence.  The  costume,  cap,  jewellery,  chair, 
are  all  so  much  better  done  than  the  figure,  face,  and 
hands.  The  personality  is  sacrificed,  as  sometimes 
happens  with  the  Moros,  Pourbuses,  and  Coellos. 
Much  repainted. 

789.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.     Perhaps  the  best 

of  the  Moros  here.  The  head  is  well  drawn  but 
badly  joined  to  the  body;  the  hands,  again,  seem  to 
protrude  prominently  from  the  sleeves.  There  is 
slight  conviction  about  it.  The  portrait  of  the 
Cardinal  Granvella  (No.  786)  should  be  compared 
with  it  for  differences.  Notice  how  high  up  on 
the  canvas  the  head  of  the  Granvella  is. placed. 


ORLEY,  BERNARD  VAN  55 

216.  Moroni,     Giovanni    Battista.    Portrait    of    a 
Sculptor.    It  seems  finer  in  the  hands  and  wrists 
than  No.  217  but  is  not  so  good  in  the  head.     The 
eyes  are  close  together — perhaps  too  close.     The 
arm  is  powerfully  drawn  and  the  statuette  (too 
high  in  light)  held  in  the  sculptor's  hands  is  cleverly 
modelled  and  painted.    The  background  is  brown 
and  does  not  now  recede  but  pushes  up  and  clings 
to  the  figure.     Ascribed  formerly  to  Titian  and  to 
Pordenone. 

217.   Portrait  of  a  Man.    It  is  better  than  the  aver- 
age Moroni  but  not  a  masterpiece.    The  neck  is 
a  little  pinched  and  the  figure  is  spare — the  clothes 
fitting  tightly  and  giving  the  impression  that  the 
head  is  too  big  for  the  body.     The  hands  are 
cramped.     At  the  back  a  plaster  wall  and  stone. 

614.  Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban.  Infant  John 
the  Baptist.  It  is  something  of  a  pity  that  this 
Murillo  is  placed  near  the  children's  portraits  by 
Velasquez,  for  it  is  weak  enough  by  itself  and  needed 
not  the  inevitable  comparison.  It  is  too  sweet  in 
sentiment  but  is  fairly  good  in  drawing  and  in  the 
painting  of  the  sheep.  But  the  colour  of  it  be- 
comes a  mere  brown  smudge  compared  with  the 
two  Velasquezes  (Nos.  611  and  615).  And  what  a 
chalky,  rather  tawdry  landscape  and  sky! 

1261.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Moonlight.  A  very  good 
effect  of  clouds  and  distance,  all  of  the  landscape 
being  good  in  tone — that  is,  justly  and  rightly  seen 
under  one  light. 

765.  Orley,  Bernard  van.  Legend  of  St.  Thomas. 
The  picture  is  separated  by  the  ornate  architectural 
shaft  in  the  centre  though  there  is  some  attempt  to 
unite  the  two  parts  by  the  sky  and  landscape  of 


56  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

the  background.  The  scene  of  the  death  of  St. 
Thomas  at  the  left  is  very  elaborate  in  architecture 
and  costume,  to  the  harm  of  the  figures,  perhaps. 
There  is,  however,  some  dramatic  action  in  the 
main  group  of  figures,  some  sentiment,  some  feel- 
ing. The  colour  is  cool  in  blues.  The  right  side 
is  of  the  same  general  character,  only  colder  in  the 
blues  and  better  in  some  of  the  background  archi- 
tecture. The  wings  of  this  altar-piece  are  in  the 
Brussels  Gallery  (No.  337). 

766.   Flight  into  Egypt.    The  figures  are  animated 

and  real  enough  in  their  pathos.  The  landscape  is 
interesting.  Originally  the  panel  was  pointed  at 
the  top  and  was,  perhaps,  the  wing  of  a  triptych. 
It  is  probably  school  work. 

1305A.  Palamedes,  Anthonie.  Company  Listening  to 
Music.  It  has  the  effect  of  yellow  light,  produced 
probably  by  yellow  varnish,  but  now  very  accept- 
able. The  colour  is  good  and  so,  too,  the  painting, 
even  if  the  drawing  does  ramble  a  bit.  Not  cata- 
logued, 1912. 

134.  Palma  Vecchio.  John  the  Baptist.  The  figure 
stands  well  and  is  fairly  well  drawn  despite  the 
womanish  hips  and  waist.  The  legs  and  the  light- 
and-shade  upon  them  are  Palmesque  but  the  rest 
of  the  figure  seems  hardly  characteristic.  There  is 
difference  of  opinion  about  its  being  a  Palma. 
Morelli  says  yes,  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  no.  The 
landscape  is  very  good  and  the  sky  excellent. 

133.  Portrait  of  Young  Woman.  It  is  now  chalky- 
white  from  much  cleaning.  The  colours  are  raw 
and  look  as  though  laid  in  yesterday.  The  figure, 
hands,  neck,  face  are  flattened  by  rubbing.  A 
handsome  type  for  a  sitter. 


PALMA  VECCHIO  57 

136.   Lucretia.    The  figure  is  somewhat  confused 

by  the  white  drapery  and  the  sentiment  somewhat 
marred  by  the  theatrical  pose  and  attitude.     How 
very  close  it  is  to  the  Decadence!     How  much  it 
has  in  common  as  regards  its  attitude  and  make- 
believe  spirit  with  pictures  by   Guido  or  Carlo 
Maratta!    But  it  is  better  done  than  their  work 
and  has  much  charm  of  colour.     It  is  a  fine  pic- 
ture according  to  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  whereas 
Wickhoff  regards  it  as  merely  a  Flemish  copy  of 
the  Borghese  picture. 

137.    Portrait   of  a    Young   Girl.     This   is   the   so- 

*      called  Violante  (from  the  violet  showing  at  her 

bosom),  and  a  beautiful  type,  dignified,  refined, 
yet  full  of  youth  and  exuberant  spirits.  It  is  a 
notable  Palma,  large  in  form,  small  and  delicate  in 
facial  features,  right  in  feeling  and  sentiment.  It 
seems  to  have  suffered  from  cleaning.  The  model- 
ling and  even  the  light  and  air  have  been  hurt  by 
it.  Notice  the  comparative  flatness  of  the  neck, 
chest,  sleeve,  hand.  The  hair  has  been  flattened, 
too,  and  apparently  repainted,  and  the  eyes  have 
been  spoiled.  Yet  it  is  still  one  of  the  noted  Pal- 
mas  of  this  gallery. 

141.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman.     The  sitter  here 

is  not  so  attractive  in  type  as  No.  137  but  the  pic- 
ture is,  perhaps,  in  a  little  better  condition.     It  was 
never  very  fine  portraiture  and  there  are  those  who 
doubt  Palma's  having  done  it.     The  background 
has  been  repainted  and  the  figure  somewhat  rubbed. 

142.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman.     It  is  a  blonde 

type  in  a  black  dress  with  white  chemise.     Being 
ample  in  form  as  well  as  having  yellow  hair,  it  is 
given  to  Palma,  but  the  attribution  is  not  at  all 


58  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

certain.  The  portrait  is,  however,  a  very  good  one 
— in  fact,  better  than  some  in  this  gallery  that  are 
unquestionably  by  Palma. 

143.   Portrait  of  a  Lady.     It  is  rather  agreeable  in 

colour  but  is  smooth,  even  glassy  in  its  surface.  It 
has  probably  been  much  greyed  by  scumbling  and 
repainting.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  seem  to  think 
it  by  Pordenone. 

139.   Visitation.     Aside  from  the  two  central  fig- 
ures (they  are  graceful  and  attractive)  the  picture 
seems    badly   composed,    restless,    rambling,    and 
empty.    The  figures  do  not  fill  the  space;  they  are 
not  large  enough  for  it.    They  run  against  one  an- 
other from  opposite  directions  in  a  rather  hopeless 
way,  and,  of  course,  there  is  no  repose  about  them. 
The  buildings  at  the  right  are  jumbled  and  even 
wrong  in  perspective  and  drawing   (look   at  the 
steps!)  and  the  left  side  of  the  picture  does  not 
agree  with  the  right  side  as  regards  the  back- 
ground.   The  whole  picture  with  its  eager  figures 
is  a  little  forced.    Palma  or  his  assistants  had 
difficulty  in  making  it  hold  together  and  his  colour 
did  not  help  him  materially.    It  is  spotted  in  the 
robes  and  repainted. 

140.    Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints.     This  is  an  arch 

*      composition  which  Palma  used  a  number  of  times 

in  his  conversation  pieces.  The  types  are  select, 
fairly  well  developed,  with  b'road  draperies.  The 
repose  and  unity  of  this  group  are  a  strong  con- 
trast to  the  Visitation  (No.  139).  It  is  a  contrast 
also  in  colour,  for  here  there  is  much  beauty  in  the 
brilliantly  lighted  robes  and  much  depth  in  their 
shadows.  The  picture  has  been  skinned  and  is 
now  raw,  but  still  the  colours  are  not  inharmonious 


PARMIGIANINO  (FRANCESCO  MAZZOLA)       59 

or  the  drawing  wholly  wrecked.  Notice  the  fine 
modelling  of  the  St.  John,  or  the  well-drawn  Child, 
or  the  well-placed  draperies.  The  group  of  trees 
and  the  far-reaching  landscape  are  both  good.  It 
is  an  excellent  Palma  for  all  its  injuries.  In  an- 
other room  Teniers  gives  this  picture  in  one  of  his 
gallery  interiors  and  the  colours  show  there  much 
darker  than  here. 

207.    The  Bravo.      It  was  originally  put  down  in 

the  catalogue  as  a  Giorgione;  in  1912  it  was  a 
Cariani;  in  1913  it  was  given  to  Palma.  What 
will  it  be  next  year?  It  is  to-day  almost  good 
enough  for  a  Giorgione.  There  is,  however,  a 
coarse  quality  about  it  peculiar  to  Cariani.  The 
light-and-shade  is  good,  as  are  also  the  colour  and 
the  drawing.  For  Palma  it  is  a  strange  perform- 
ance. Possibly  by  the  same  hand  that  did  No.  89 
at  St.  Petersburg,  there  put  down  to  Caprioli. 

599.  Pantoja  de  la  Cruz,  Juan.  Portrait  of  the  In- 
fante Philip.  The  sliding  floor,  the  hard  table- 
cloth, the  poor  curtain  at  the  back,  the  white- 
stocking  legs  and  white  face  give  the  quality  of 
this  portrait  fairly  well.  The  picked-out  pattern 
of  the  armour  only  serves  to  weaken  and  cheapen 
the  little  man  within  it.  No.  598  is  of  the  same 
quality  and  kind. 

61.  Parmigianino  (Francesco  Mazzola).  Portrait. 
It  is  rather  loosely  drawn  in  the  eyes,  nose,  hand, 
but  the  general  effect  produced  is  fairly  good. 

67.  Portrait  of  Malatesta  Baglione.  The  archi- 
tecture makes  the  man  look  gigantic  in  size  and 
the  portrait  is  rendered  more  or  less  grotesque 
thereby.  The  width  across  the  elbows  is  too  great 
and  the  pattern  on  the  canvas  is  diamond-shaped. 


60  THt  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

The  beard  is  bushy,  the  nose  square,  the  eyes  badly 
drawn.  It  is  not  satisfactory. 

62.   The  Bow  Maker.     Cupid  making  a  bow — a 

*  picture  unusual  in  subject  as  in  colour  and  at  one 
time  ascribed  to  Correggio.  The  figure  is  grace- 
fully posed  and  very  well  drawn  and  the  wings  are 
easily  painted,  showing  how  well  the  Decadents 
could  handle  the  pencil  and  brush  even  after  taste 
had  left  them.  The  flesh  of  the  cupids  at  the 
bottom  is  a  little  hot  in  colour. 

665.  Patinir,  Joachim.     Martyrdom  of  St.  Catherine. 

The  picture  is  in  the  style  or  manner  of  Patinir. 
Mr.  W.  Schmidt  thinks  it  by  Bles,  which  is  not 
probable  unless  all  the  present  conceptions  of 
Bles  are  at  fault.  See  the  fine  landscape  and  rock 
drawing  in  No.  664  by  Patinir. 

666.   Baptism  of  Christ.     It  is  a  signed  work  by 

Patinir  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  signature.     It  should  be  tentatively 
accepted  as  a  criterion  of  PatimYs  style  and  method 
and  mental  notes  made  of  its  water,  mountains, 
light,  sky,  trees,  etc.     The  Flight  into  Egypt  (No. 
676),  put  down  in  this  gallery  to  the  Master  of  the 
Seven  Sorrows,  is  possibly  by  the  same  hand,  cer- 
tainly in  the  same  school.     Compare  the  two  pic- 
tures closely. 

667.    Flight  into  Egypt.     A  picture  by  some  one 

close  to  Patinir  but  probably  not  Bles.     The  owl 
sign  at  the  right  lower  corner  means  little.     Neither 
the  figures  nor  the  landscape  seem  related  to  Bles. 
Compare  this  picture  with  No.  666. 

1439.    Pencz,  Georg.     Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  never  had 
the  penetration,  the  analysis,  the  synthesis,  the 


PERUGINO,  PIETRO  61 

high  quality  of  the  portraits  hanging  near  it — nota- 
bly the  Diirer  Maximilian.  It  is,  however,  a  dig- 
nified type  given  with  sobriety  and  some  skill. 
Injured  by  retouching. 

27.  Perugino,  Pietro.  Madonna,  Child,  and  Four 
Saints.  The  poses  of  the  heads  repeat  each  other 
rather  monotonously.  There  are  six  heads,  all  of 
them  turned  to  the  right,  all  of  similar  type,  and 
all  oppressed  by  the  same  sentiment.  And  why 
did  the  painter  think  it  necessary  to  enclose  the 
group  in  that  box  or  high  railing,  thereby  cutting 
out  landscape  and  space — the  two  things  in  which 
he  so  notably  excelled?  The  boxed-in  effect  seems 
unfortunate.  Above  the  square  one  feels  the  depth 
of  the  sky,  and  the  colour  is  rather  rich  in  the  robes, 
but  one  is  conscious  of  the  crowding  of  the  figures 
and  the  perfunctory  nature  of  their  grouping. 

25.    St.  Jerome.     The    white   robe   of  the  Saint 

shows  mannered  catches  in  the  drapery.  It  is  not 
an  important  work.  The  serene  landscape  is  much 
the  best  part  of  it. 

24.   Baptism  of  Christ.    The  figures  are  tall  and 

slightly  suggestive  of  the  young  Raphael,  though 
not  round  enough  and  much  too  flat  in  the  hands, 
wrists,  and  arms.  The  colour  is  very  cold  in  blues 
that  run  through  the  water,  landscape,  and  sky.  It 
is  possibly  not  a  Perugino  but  a  copy  after  him,  as 
Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  insisted. 

32.    Madonna,      Child,     and     Two     Saints.     The 

straight  cross-lines  of  the  neck-pieces  are  decidedly 
disturbing.  It  gives  the  impression  of  the  three 
heads  protruding  above  a  given  line.  The  types 
are  as  usual  with  Perugino  and  also  the  sentiment. 


62  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

The  colour  of  the  blue  is  especially  crude.  The 
haloes  have  been  injured.  It  is  probably  a  work- 
shop repetition  of  the  Louvre  picture  (No.  1565) 
with  the  exception  of  the  figure  at  the  left. 

17.  Piombo,  Sebastiano  del.  Portrait  of  Cardinal 
Pucci.  It  is  a  large  portrait  and  hard  in  the  draw- 
ing of  the  nose,  brows,  eyes.  As  a  Sebastiano  it 
will  hardly  meet  with  universal  acceptance  though 
it  is  in  his  style. 

69.    Predis,     Ambrogio     da.     Emperor    Maximilian. 

It  provokes  a  contrast  with  the  Diirer  portrait  of 
the  Emperor  and  to  the  advantage  of  the  Diirer. 
The  Predis  is  flat  in  profile  and  looks  somewhat  like 
a  relief  upon  a  coin  or  medal.  Notice  the  failure 
of  the  Golden  Fleece  collar  to  travel  about  the  neck. 
Nor  is  the  character  well  grasped  or  the  painting 
well  done.  It  was  ascribed  to  Borgognone  until 
Morelli  gave  it  its  present  parentage. 

14.  Previtali,  Andrea.  Holy  Family.  The^Madonna 
is  sweet  in  white  head-dress  and  blue  robe;  she  has 
no  depth  and  the  colours  have  no  quality.  The 
landscape  (as  usual  with  Previtali)  is  the  better  part 
of  the  picture. 

29.    Raphael   (Sanzio).     Madonna   in   the  Meadow. 

*  It  has  the  defects  and  the  qualities  of  Raphael's 
early  works,  such  as  the  Madonna  of  the  Goldfinch 
and  the  Belle  Jardiniere,  without  being  the  equal 
of  either  of  those  Madonnas.  The  pyramidal  com- 
position, the  heavy  eyelids,  the  light-and-shade,  the 
contours  of  St.  John  point  to  influences  received  from 
Leonardo  and  Fra  Bartolommeo.  The  serenity  and 
poise  of  the  figures  are  Raphael's  own  contribution. 
The  figures  are  well  drawn  save  for  the  lower  part 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  63 

of  the  Madonna,  and  they  are  well  held  together 
in  the  group,  though  the  group  is  not  well  related 
to  the  landscape.  It  is  like  a  flat  silhouette  in  the 
foreground  and  has  no  third  dimension.  The  fore- 
ground and  background  are  too  sharp  in  their  con- 
trasts of  blue  and  brown  and  the  straight  line  of  the 
distance  cutting  across  the  Madonna  shoulders  is 
rather  disturbing.  In  the  figures,  again,  the  col- 
our of  the  red  dress  is  in  keeping  with  the  blue 
overdress  but  not  with  the  colour  of  the  landscape. 
The  outline  of  the  Madonna  seems  hard  not  only 
in  the  shoulders  and  neck  but  in  her  blue  robe. 
This  is  due  to  the  use  of  heavy  impasto  in  the  fig- 
ure and  thin  painting  in  the  background.  But  all 
this  is  small  criticism  of  a  really  good  picture.  The 
foreground  and  the  distance,  separately  considered, 
are  excellent — something  that  may  be  said  with 
equal  truth  regarding  the  figures. 

1271  \  Rembrandt  van  Ryn.    Portraits  of  a  Man  and 

1272  j  Woman.    There  is  little  about  either  portrait  to 

suggest  Rembrandt  save  in  a  general  way.  They 
are  too  prettily  done,  too  smooth,  too  clear  in  il- 
lumination for  Rembrandt.  He  hardly  did  that 
white  linen  or  those  rosy  faces  or  patterned  sleeves 
or  pallid  backgrounds.  Moreover,  he  was  never 
so  flabby  mentally,  so  agreeably  complacent  as 
these  portraits  indicate.  To  be  sure,  they  have 
been  repainted  and  have,  perhaps,  been  changed 
thereby,  but  even  so,  there  is  small  indication  of 
Rembrandt  in  them  now.  The  handling  is  not  his 
and  the  hands  are  his  only  superficially. 

1273.    Rembrandt's  Mother.     We  may  dismiss  the 

little  fiction  of  this  being  Rembrandt's  mother  as 
in  other  galleries  the  misstatements  of  the  cata- 


64  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

logues  about  Rembrandt's  various  relations,  wives, 
and  affinities.  We  know  little  about  the  look  of 
any  of  them.  As  for  this  picture,  if  it  is  of  Rem- 
brandt origin  it  should  of  itself  refute  the  attribu- 
tions of  Nos.  1271  and  1272  hanging  on  either  side 
of  it.  Any  one  can  see  that  the  pictures  are  by 
different  painters.  But  the  alleged  Rembrandt's 
Mother  is  little  more  characteristic  of  Rembrandt 
than  the  others.  It  is  small  and  much  pinched 
in  the  drawing.  The  old  woman  of  it  is  well  rep- 
resented, though  exaggerated  in  the  matter  of 
wrinkles,  sore  eyes,  and  bent  figure.  The  greyed 
linen  is  rather  good,  the  head-dress  with  its  cast 
shadow  and  the  brooch  equally  so.  The  fur  of  the 
coat,  the  hands,  and  the  background  have  been 
wrecked  evidently  by  attempts  at  cleaning  with 
alcohol.  The  head-dress  is  retouched  and  the  whole 
picture  has  been  injured  in  its  surface,  which  may  ac- 
count for  a  mouldy,  brownish  colouring  that  is  now 
omnipresent.  It  is  a  puzzling  picture,  but  it  looks 
like  a  varied  copy  or  possibly  a  school  piece  of  some 
sort.  Another  alleged  Rembrandt  of  his  mother 
is  here,  in  Vienna,  in  the  Czernin  Collection. 

1268.    Portrait  of  Rembrandt.     A  possible    portrait 

of  the  master  probably  made  by  one  of  his  pupils 
and  not  at  all  well  made.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
Rembrandt  should  paint  himself  so  many  times 
and  each  time  so  differently,  with  a  different  point 
of  view  and  handling.  The  variance  in  the  por- 
traits is  explicable  if  we  regard  them  as  attempts 
to  do  the  master  (or  some  model  that  we  now  call 
Rembrandt)  by  his  various  pupils.  Here,  for  in- 
stance, we  have  him  with  narrow,  misfit  eyes,  an 
ill-drawn  nose,  an  over-modelled  upper  lip,  an  uncer- 
tain second  chin,  a  sharp  cheek  line  at  the  right,  a 


REMBRANDT  VAN   RYN  65 

corrugated  forehead,  and  a  slash  of  brown  paint  at 
the  top  of  it  for  a  shadow.  To  go  no  further,  who 
can  believe  Rembrandt  guilty  of  such  work?  The 
hot,  foxy  colouring  and  the  loaded  but  ineffective 
pigments  are  only  superficially  like  those  of  Rem- 
brandt. What  more  natural  than  that  the  pupil 
should  ape  the  master's  effects — even  his  defects? 

1269.    Young  Reader.     Said  in  the  catalogue  to  be 

Rembrandt's  son  Titus,  following  the  suggestion 
of  Dr.  Bode,  who  has  done  so  much  to  build  up 
likenesses  of  the  Rembrandt  family  out  of  his  fer- 
tile imagination.     The  sitter  was  only  a  model  and 
was  used  by  Bol  for  his  angel  in  the  Berlin  Gallery 
(No.  828)  and  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  (No.  552). 
He  painted  the  young  man's  likeness  also  at  Berlin 
(No.  809 A).     The  likeness  is  here  slightly  varied 
but  it  is  the  same  model.     This  picture  is  possibly 
by  Bol  not  because  of  the  model,  but  because  of 
the  handling,  colour,  light.     Compare  the  portrait 
with  Nos.  1268,  1272,  and  1273,  and  here  in  this 
gallery  you  have  the  work  of  four  different  hands 
under  Rembrandt's  name.     If  you  consider  No. 
1276  as  a  Rembrandt  you  have  five  different  styles. 
Was  there  ever  such  a  gallery  mix-up!    Notice  the 
bad  hand,  the  sharp  chin,  the  muddy  hair  and  coat 
in  this  No.  1269. 

1270.   The  Apostle  Paul.     It  is  in  Rembrandt's  man- 
ner and  the  model  is  one  that  Rembrandt  used, 
but  the  picture  is  possibly  by  the  painter  of  No. 
1279  across  the  way  put  down  to  Flinck,  but  by 
some  other  imitator  of  Rembrandt.     Compare  the 
pictures  by  beginning  with  the  beards,  the  eyes, 
the  foreheads.     The  No.  1279  is  apparently  in  Rem- 
brandt's grey  manner  and  the  No.  1270  in  his  more 


66  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

golden  manner — the  imitator  following  the  master 
in  each  style. 

1274.  Portrait  of  the  Painter.  Compare  this  por- 
trait with  No.  1268 — both  said  to  be  likenesses  of 
the  master — for  the  drawing,  placing,  and  width 
apart  of  the  eyes.  In  this  feature  alone  is  it  pos- 
sible that  the  painter  could  see  and  paint  himself 
so  differently?  This  is  a  better  picture  than  No. 
1268,  but  it  has  the  brown  smudge  for  a  shadow 
and  the  uncertain,  dragged  surface  of  a  pupil  rather 
than  of  the  master.  For  a  resume  of  Rembrandt's 
styles,  see  the  notes  on  the  Rembrandts  at  Berlin, 
The  Hague,  and  the  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg. 

1276.    Head  of  a  Man.     It  is  probably  an  unfinished 

head  by  some  one  like  Flinck.  It  belongs  with  the 
David  before  Saul  at  The  Hague  and  is  not  unlike 
it  in  the  fumbled  handling. 

219.  Romanino,  II  (Girolamo  Roman!) .  Portrait  of 
a  Lady.  A  very  good  little  portrait,  well  drawn, 
and  like  a  Giorgione  in  the  forehead,  nose,  brows, 
mouth,  flesh  colour,  but  it  lacks  Giorgione's  spirit. 
There  is  a  fine  colour  quality  about  it  and  it  is 
excellent  portraiture  without  being  by  Giorgione 
or  Romanino.  The  catalogue  queries  the  attribu- 
tion. It  belongs  apparently  in  the  Veronese  School. 

834.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  Votive  Picture  of  the 
***  Brotherhood  of  St.  Ildefonso.  The  large  Rubens 
pictures  in  this  gallery  are  much  confused  by  being 
given  in  the  lump  to  Rubens,  with  little  discrimina- 
tion between  school  works  and  those  done  by  the 
master's  own  hand.  A  single  glance  at  the  St. 
Ildefonso  picture  and  then  a  glance  across  the  gal- 
lery at  the  large  Xavier  and  Loyola  pictures  (Nos. 
860  and  865)  must  suggest  that  the  first  picture  is 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  67 

by  a  different  hand  from  the  last  two.  In  the 
matter  of  colour  alone,  how  much  more  brilliant, 
glowing,  ringing  is  the  St.  Ildefonsol  The  rich  reds 
and  golds  are  in  themselves  a  measurable  proof  of 
Rubens's  brush,  for  none  of  his  pupils  could  quite 
reach  up  to  such  colours  even  with  the  master's 
palette  in  their  hands.  Take  the  matter  of  the 
composition  and  again  you  have  something  that 
only  Rubens  was  capable  of  producing.  The  cen- 
tral panel  is  arranged  as  a  ring  of  figures  about  the 
Madonna — the  round,  shell-like  arch  at  the  back 
completing  the  ring  and  leading  the  eye  up  to  the 
three  soaring  cherubs.  There  you  discover  a  larger 
ring,  of  which  the  cherubs  are  the  top,  circling  the 
whole  panel  and  making  a  round  pattern  upon  an 
upright,  the  throne  steps  being  the  flat  base  upon 
which  it  rests.  In  the  side  panels  you  will  notice 
that  the  Archduke  and  the  Archduchess  with  the 
saints  back  of  them  are  looking  up  at  the  Ma- 
donna and  that  the  diagonal  lines  of  their  kneeling 
figures  and  their  robes  are  repeated  in  the  curtains. 
These  figures  and  curtains  with  their  diagonal  lines 
not  only  support  the  central  panel  but  give  it  life 
and  movement  by  suggesting  an  even  larger  circle, 
or  rather  half  circle,  of  which  they  are  the  outside 
edge.  They  apparently  help  the  movement  of  the 
cherubs  above,  seem  to  push  them  from  left  to  right, 
and  in  that  way  again  suggest  action  in  the  central 
group  from  left  to  right  about  the  Madonna.  Now, 
this  is  all  done  in  a  masterful  way,  without  strain 
or  exertion,  and  results  in  a  feeling  not  only  of  sup- 
port by  the  wings  but  movement,  life,  and,  above 
all,  unity  in  the  whole  altar-piece.  No  one  in 
Rubens's  school  could  do  such  work — or,  at  least, 
never  did.  It  took  his  master  mind  to  think  it 


68  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

out.  Take  up  now  the  drawing  and  painting  of 
single  figures.  Notice  the  young  girl  in  white  on 
the  steps  in  front  of  the  Madonna.  She  is  the  first 
object  to  catch  the  eye  and  lead  up  to  the  Madonna. 
How  beautifully  she  stands!  How  well  the  figure 
is  done,  with  the  exception  of  the  neck  and  shoulder 
which  have  been  injured  I  How  well  the  white  is 
painted  and  kept  down  in  light  I  How  true  the 
hair  and  the  flowers!  The  beautiful  figures  at  the 
back  are  just  as  perfect  in  their  painting,  only  their 
fine  heads  and  hands  and  rich  garments  are  now 
somewhat  hurt  by  retouching.  The  Madonna  is, 
perhaps,  less  beautiful  than  her  attendants  and  the 
kneeling  saint  is  only  a  foil  to  the  rest  of  the  figures. 
The  cherubs  at  the  top  are  somewhat  hurt  but  still 
keep  their  place  and  serve  their  purpose  very  well. 
The  whole  central  panel  has  been  injured  by  clean- 
ing and  repainting.  The  side  panels  with  the  strips 
of  wood  running  up  and  down  instead  of  across  seem 
to  be  in  better  shape  as  regards  the  figures  at  least. 
Notice  the  head  of  the  Archduke;  how  beautifully 
it  is  done !  What  an  ermine  robe,  collar,  and  crown  I 
What  splendid  armour  in  its  light  and  texture! 
Finally,  notice  the  well-drawn  hands,  the  bulk  of 
the  figure,  and  its  placing  on  the  panel  as  a  kneeling 
figure.  The  saints  at  the  back  and  the  curtains  are 
subordinated  in  both  of  the  side  panels.  The  Arch- 
duchess is  just  as  noble  in  figure  as  the  Archduke. 
She  is  a  superb  type  in  magnificent  robes.  How 
majestic  they  both  are — how  truly  regal!  The 
triptych  is  most  impressive  in  its  splendour.  It  is 
the  best  large  example  of  Rubens  in  the  gallery  or, 
for  that  matter,  in  existence  anywhere.  We  must 
judge  the  other  large  Rubenses  here  by  this  exam- 
ple. It  is  a  masterpiece  of  pictorial  rhetoric. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  69 

841.    Charles  the  Bold.     In  sheer  brilliancy  of  col- 

*  our  there  is  nothing  in  the  gallery  comparable  to 
this  save  its  pendant  picture  (No.  832).     It  quite 
agrees  with  the  large  altar-piece  (No.  834)  next  it 
though  now  more  sparkling.     Perhaps  this  latter 
is  due  to  its  better  condition,  it  being  smaller,  on 
wood,  and  not  scumbled  over  or  greyed  by  repaint- 
ing.    Look  closely  at  the  brush-work  and  the  easy 
but  sure  manner  of  its  doing  will  be  immediately 
apparent.     There  never  was  a  surer  brush  than 
that  of  Rubens.     And   what  a  superb   piece  of 
drawing!    What  a  perfect  welter  of  colour!    No- 
tice the  robes,  the  armour,  the  curtain.     Even  the 
sky  serves  to  help  on  the  colour  scheme.     Nor  is  it 
all  merely  decorative  splendour.     The  personality 
of  the  sitter  is  prodigious.     What  a  powerful  hand, 
arm,  figure!    What  brute  force  in  the  face!    It  is 
not  only  a  glorious  piece  of  colour  but  a  fine  por- 
trait, for  all  that  it  was  done  out  of  the  painter's 
head.     Let  those  who  think  it  theatrical  bombast 
or  mere  pictorial  rhetoric  scoff  as  they  may,  they 
cannot  deny  its  fitness  for  its  purpose.     Both  por- 
traits were  painted  for  a  royal  pageant  and  were 
consequently  laid  in  with  brilliant  colours.    But 
with  the  Antwerp  parade  dead  and  gone,  the  por- 
traits are  still  marvels  here  on  gallery  walls  beside 
subtler  portraits  done  carefully  for  close  inspection. 

832.    Emperor  Maximilian.     Parts  of  this  portrait 

*  are  quite  as  brilliant  as  No.  841.     The  colour  from 
the  waist  down  is  very  high  in  key  and  laid  on  with 
the  flat  of  the  brush.     Look  at  it  closely.     There  is 
brilliancy  in  the  glitter  of  the  wonderfully  painted 
armour,  in  the  helmet  with  its  twisted  cloth  of  red, 
white,  and  blue,  in  the  red  curtain.     The  sky  and 
landscape  are  put  in  in  cool  colours  to  temper  the 


7©  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

reds,  but  it  is,  perhaps,  not  so  satisfactory  as  the 
sky  in  No.  841.  The  painting  and  the  drawing  are 
free  and  true  in  almost  every  respect.  The  face 
and  nose  are  not  very  satisfactory  because  the 
Emperor  had  something  of  a  nose  to  reckon  with; 
but  how  well  the  right  side  of  the  face  is  handled 
under  shadow!  Notice  also  the  contrast  between 
the  right  and  the  left  sleeve  of  armour  under  shadow 
and  light.  The  character  of  the  man  is  not  so  im- 
posing as  that  of  Charles  the  Bold  but  is  still  impres- 
sive considering  that  Rubens  did  it  out  of  his  head. 
The  picture  is  very  glittering  and  perhaps  too  bril- 
liant for  sober  portraiture,  but,  like  the  Charles  the 
Bold,  it  was  not  designed  for  that.  It  was  painted 
for  a  pageant,  a  triumphal  procession,  not  a  gallery 
wall.  But,  even  so,  why  should  portraiture  seem 
to  require  only  drabs  and  sombre  greys?  Rubens 
was  a  picture-maker  first  and  foremost  and  believed 
in  a  full  palette  of  colour. 

865.    St.    Ignatius    Loyola    Healing    the    Possessed. 

A  huge  canvas  painted  for  a  Jesuit  church  at  Ant- 
werp and  largely  executed  by  Rubens's  pupils.  It 
is  school  work  which  he  designed  and  they  carried 
out.  It  lacks  his  brilliancy  of  touch  and  colour 
though  fairly  well  done.  It  is  a  pyramidal  compo- 
sition with  a  circle  indicated  in  the  lower  figures. 
The  upper  part  of  the  picture  at  the  left  gives 
space  but  leaves  a  feeling  of  emptiness  also.  Some 
of  the  figures — the  Magdalen  type  at  the  centre, 
for  instance — are  well  drawn.  The  sketch  for  the 
picture  is  on  the  wall  beside  it  (No.  862).  The 
sketch  is  much  paler  in  colour,  as  was  the  habit  of 
Rubens,  but  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  col- 
our between  the  sketch  and  the  picture  is  very 
apparent. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  71 

860.    St.  Francis  Xavier  Preaching.     This  picture  is 

similar  to  No.  865  in  being  designed  by  Rubens  and 
largely  executed  by  pupils.     The  drawing  of  it  has 
been  carried  out  better  than  the  painting.     The 
colour  is  duller  than  usual  with  Rubens.     The  com- 
position is  balanced  by  groups  on  either  side  but 
again  suggests  the  circle  upon  the  upright.     Notice 
the  huge  figure  with  the  foreshortened  arm  and 
hand  at  the  right  and  the  kneeling  woman  in  blue 
in  the  centre.     The  sketch  for  the  picture  is  on  the 
wall  beside  it  (No.  863).     The  pallor  of  the  sketch 
and  the  difference  in  its  colour  quality  are  again 
noticeable. 

861.    Assumption  of  the  Virgin.     This  picture,  done 

*      for  a  Jesuit  church  at  Antwerp,  is  on  wood  and 

has  still  some  bright  colour  about  it.  It  is  probably 
school  work,  with  the  master's  brush  apparent  in 
some  finishing  touches,  perhaps.  The  upper  half  is 
a  circle  of  the  Madonna  and  cherubs,  which  is  sup- 
ported by  the  group  of  apostles  at  the  bottom. 
This  group  circles  upward  at  the  sides  and  comple- 
ments as  well  as  supports  the  upper  circle.  The  two 
parts  do  not  agree  very  well,  the  upper  being  too 
light  in  key  for  the  lower — something,  perhaps, 
brought  about  by  restoration.  There  is,  however, 
good  motion,  good  drawing,  and  some  splendour  of 
robe.  The  putti  or  cherubs  are  a  trifle  pretty  as 
also  the  three  women  below.  The  picture  is  badly 
injured  above  the  head  of  the  apostle  in  red  and 
across  the  centre — injured,  perhaps,  in  the  fire  in 
the  Antwerp  church  in  1718.  It  was  also  sawn 
into  three  sections  when  taken  to  Paris  in  1809. 

866.    Ferdinand  of  Hungary  and  the  Infante  Ferdi- 
nand at  Nordlingen.     It  is  a  decorative  piece  done 


72  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

sketchily  and  hastily  for  that  Antwerp  street  pag- 
eant in  1635  by  Rubens's  pupils.  Rubens  may 
have  given  it  a  lick  and  a  rub,  but  even  that  is 
not  now  indicated. 

871.    Holy    Family    under    the    Apple-Tree.      The 

picture  is  by  Rubens  and  his  pupils  but  it  is  now 
injured  by  restoration.  The  Madonna  and  Child 
are  less  interesting  than  St.  Anne  and  the  little  St. 
John,  and  perhaps  the  apples  and  the  apple-tree 
are  the  best  pieces  of  painting  left  in  the  picture. 
The  head  of  St.  Anne  is  excellent.  The  sheep  will 
not  do.  Compare  it  with  the  lamb  in  No.  840. 
The  landscape  is  superior  to  the  average  Wildens 
landscape  usually  foisted  upon  Rubens  in  European 
galleries.  The  whole  picture  is  the  reverse  of  the 
wings  of  the  St.  Ildefonso  altar-piece  (No.  834) 
now  joined  together  in  one  panel. 

858.    Hunt    of   the    Caledonian   Boar.     It  will    not 

pass  muster  as  a  Rubens  in  either  thinking  or  paint- 
ing unless  we  believe  Rubens  capable  of  such  stu- 
pidities as  the  dog  clinging  to  the  tree  trunk,  the 
man  at  back  riding  the  hobby-horse,  the  com- 
panion horseman  riding  the  air,  the  crude  sky,  and 
the  cruder  landscape.  It  is  by  some  pupil  or  fol- 
lower— possibly  Wildens. 

857.    The  Four  Rivers.      A  decorative  piece  with 

some  good  colour  wrung  from  the  treatment  of  the 
flesh,  the  shadows  of  which  are  red  and  make  for 
warmth.  There  is  also  some  good  modelling  in  the 
backs,  arms,  and  legs,  and  some  fairly  good  paint- 
ing in  the  heads  of  the  two  nymphs  at  the  right. 
It  is  of  Rubens  origin  but  not  entirely  by  his  hand. 
It  shows  traces  of  the  workshop.  Wildens  is  made 
responsible  for  the  landscape  by  the  catalogue. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  73 

849  1  Ferdinand  of  Hungary  and  the  Cardinal  In- 

851  J  fante  Ferdinand.  Two  decorative  portraits  done 
merely  for  Antwerp  street  decoration  in  1635,  in 
the  Rubens  workshop.  There  is  little  indication  of 
Rubens  in  or  about  them.  See  the  note  on  No.  866. 

850.    St.  Ambrosias  and  the  Emperor   Theodosius. 

There  is  a  look  of  Van  Dyck's  brush  and  drawing 
in  the  head  between  that  of  the  Bishop  and  the 
Emperor,  as  in  the  heads  at  the  right;  also  in  the 
Bishop's  hands.  Probably  Van  Dyck  as  a  pupil 
or  assistant  worked  upon  the  picture,  but  the  de- 
sign of  it  and  the  final  touch  of  it  are  from  Rubens's 
own  hand.  Van  Dyck  did  hotter  and  darker  flesh, 
duller  colour,  poorer  robes.  The  boy's  white  dress 
at  the  right  may  be  his,  but  not  the  boy's  head  and 
hair,  not  the  red  robe  and  armour  of  the  Emperor. 
There  has  been  some  underwork  by  the  pupil  and 
some  overwork  by  the  master  to  make  up  a  not 
very  interesting  picture.  The  reduced  copy  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London  (No.  50),  is  ascribed  to 
Van  Dyck. 

833.    Repentant  Magdalen.     Study  for  a  moment 

the  anatomy  of  the  Magdalen's  lower  limbs,  her 
shoulder  and  arms,  the  hands  and  wrists  of  the 
evilly  disposed  creature  at  the  back,  or  the  dread- 
ful red  curtain.  It  is  only  some  cheap  work  by 
an  indifferent  follower  of  Rubens.  It  is  not  by 
the  master. 

842.    Annunciation.     This    picture    is    usually  set 

down  as  the  earliest  of  all  the  Rubenses  and  is 
said  to  have  been  done  before  1600 — before  Rubens 
went  to  Italy.  This  is  not  probable  because  the 
composition  here  is  taken  from  Baroccio's  Annun- 
ciation in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence — a  painter  from 


74  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

whose  pictures  Rubens  learned  much  in  colour  and 
handling.  The  work  was  probably  done  during 
Rubens's  first  year  in  Italy.  It  is  as  superficial  in 
its  colour  as  in  its  facility  of  handling.  The  angel 
is  the  better  part  of  it.  Not  a  remarkable  work  in 
any  way. 

843.    Cytnon  and  Iphigenia.     It  is  an  indifferent 

school  piece.  The  work  is  timid  and  uncertain  all 
through  the  picture  as  you  may  see  by  close  ex- 
amination. Begin  with  the  crude  landscape  and 
cheaply  painted  trees  of  the  background.  Compare 
the  tree  and  the  fruit  upon  it  with  the  apple-tree  in 
No.  871.  Then  study  that  dreadfully  drawn  peas- 
ant or  the  bizarre  fountain.  The  three  sleeping 
figures  are  not  so  bad,  but  the  flesh  lacks  colour 
quality  just  as  much  as  the  red  and  blue  robes 
under  the  figures.  It  makes  no  difference  about  the 
picture  coming  from  the  Duke  of  Buckingham's 
collection.  That  is  no  proof  or  guarantee  of  genu- 
ineness. Wildens  and  Snyders  are  credited  with 
the  accessories,  and  they  might  as  well  have  the 
whole  picture,  for  all  the  Rubens  one  can  see  in  it. 

840.    Infant  Christ  with  St.  John  and  Two  Children. 

It  is  probably  by  Rubens  but  is  cleaned  and  re- 
painted in  the  faces,  arms,  and  hands.  The  hair 
is  now  a  little  coarse  and  wiry.  It  is  well  drawn 
and  still  a  fine  bit  of  colour.  The  grapes  and  apples 
are  said  to  be  by  Snyders.  Another  version  at 
Berlin. 

830.   The  Cult  of  Venus.   Rubens  no  doubt  designed 

this  picture,  and  the  work  of  his  brush  may  be 
somewhere  hidden  under  the  present  surface,  but 
there  is  little  of  the  surface  that  now  speaks  for 
him  or  his  technique.  The  sky  and  landscape  have 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  75 

a  greyish  scumble,  the  flesh  colour  is  chalky,  the 
foliage  is  woolly,  the  hair  is  matted  and  tangled 
with  paint,  the  fruit  has  little  purity  left  to  it. 
The  glass  over  the  picture  gives  it  a  certain  tone  and 
richness  that  are  deceptive.  It  is  by  no  means 
badly  planned  or  drawn.  In  fact,  the  design,  the 
landscape,  the  whirl  of  figures  are  excellent.  The 
group  at  the  left,  for  instance,  is  really  superb  and 
the  ring  of  cupids  on  the  ground  is  effective  in  life, 
motion,  grace,  charm,  but  for  all  that  we  see  Rubens 
only  through  a  glass  darkly. 

868.    The    Hermit     and     the     Sleeping     Angelica. 

There  is  nothing  but  the  lumpy  figure — its  drawing 
— to  suggest  Rubens.  The  brush-work  is  not  his. 
It  looks  like  a  rubbed  school  copy.  Not  even  the 
name  of  being  in  the  Duke  of  Buckingham's  collec- 
tion can  make  it  a  Rubens.  Look  at  the  crude 
handling  of  the  whites.  The  drawing  is  loose  but 
effective  enough. 

869.    Stormy    Landscape.     Here    is    a    landscape 

*      worthy  of  Rubens  in  its  conception  and  in  its 

painting.  It  should  be  carried  in  memory  to 
London  and  compared  with  the  large  landscapes 
in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  66)  and  the  Wallace 
Collection  (No.  62).  They  are  rather  far  removed 
from  this  landscape  in  style  and  method.  This 
picture  is  slightly  panoramic,  but  please  observe 
that  it  is  in  tone,  under  one  light,  with  no  spotty 
high  lights,  or  crude  sky,  or  raw  distance,  or  ill- 
drawn  figures.  It  is  held  together,  easily  painted, 
truly  drawn  in  the  trees,  rocks,  clouds.  Notice 
how  well  the  rocky  height  with  the  castle  in  the 
middle  distance  is  done.  Notice  also  the  doing  of 
the  rainbow  and  the  waterfall  at  the  left.  The 


76  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

picture,  in  connection  with  a  recently  acquired 
landscape  by  Rubens  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London  (No.  2924),  should  be  used  as  a  criterion  of 
Rubens's  landscapes.  It  is  a  very  different  affair 
from  the  landscapes  of  Wildens  or  Van  Uden  origin 
that  pass  for  Rubenses  elsewhere. 

864.    Dead    Christ    with    Madonna    and   St.    John. 

*  The  work  is  entirely  by  Rubens's  hand  but  is  now 
glaring  and  rather  raw  owing  to  the  flaying  of  the 
surface  by  injudicious  cleaning.  Look  closely  at 
it  and  you  will  see  that  the  final  delicate  touches 
that  count  for  so  much  in  modelling,  light,  colour, 
texture  have  been  swept  away.  The  jaw  lines  of 
both  the  Madonna  and  St.  John  are  now  hard,  the 
neck  shadows  are  grey,  the  red  robe  is  crude,  the 
blue  robe  is  spotted,  the  finely  modelled  figure  of 
Christ  is  flattened.  What  a  pity!  Here  is  a  pic- 
ture not  only  of  masterful  skill  but  of  great  feeling 
hopelessly  damaged  by  careless  cleaning-room 
methods. 

839.  Pieta.  There  are  other  versions  of  this  pic- 
ture at  Antwerp  (No.  319)  and  in  the  Liechtenstein 
Gallery.  This  example  seems  a  little  pretty  in  its 
doing  of  the  women's  heads,  as  though  some  late 
and  weak  follower  had  been  copying  Rubens.  Yet 
it  has  none  of  the  weakness  of  Van  Balen,  none 
of  the  glassy  slipperiness  of  Seghers.  Signed  and 
dated  in  1614,  but  for  all  that  it  is  somewhat  ques- 
tionable. 

837.   The  Castle  Park.    It  is  a  nice  bit  of  colour  and 

not  a  bad  landscape,  but  with  little  about  it  to  in- 
dicate Rubens.  The  trees  show  too  much  igno- 
rance of  structure,  the  figures  too  much  ignorance 
of  anatomy,  for  Rubens.  The  fact  that  the  figure 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  77 

at  the  left  with  the  stick  is  supposed  to  be  Rubens's 
self  might  suggest  a  pupil's  work  rather  than  the 
master's. 

835.    Hero   Crowned  by    Victory.      Rubens   varied 

this  theme  several  times,  and  this  may  be  a  sketch 
for  something  never  carried  out,  but  it  does  not 
now  show  the  handling  of  Rubens.  Besides,  the 
flesh  is  too  hot  for  him.  A  very  good  sketch  who- 
ever did  it,  and  it  may  be  by  Rubens  in  spite  of 
contradictory  features. 

829.    Helene  Fourment  in  a  Fur  Pelisse.     This  is  a 

***  portrait  of  the  painter's  second  wife,  Helene  Four- 
ment, done  when  Rubens  was  about  fifty-five  years 
old,  and  beyond  a  doubt  entirely  by  his  own  hand. 
We  should  judge  as  much  from  the  nudity  of  the 
sitter  even  if  there  were  not  documentary  as  well 
as  internal  evidence  of  its  being  by  Rubens's  own 
hand.  The  picture  has  been  hurt  a  little  by  clean- 
ing, and  has  been  retouched  about  the  hands,  arms, 
and  face  and  injured  under  the  arm,  but  it  is  still 
in  its  surface  handling  a  complete  denial  of  any 
notion  that  Rubens  in  later  life  ever  did  any  clumsy 
or  bungling  work.  He  died  at  sixty-three  and  you 
can  see  his  own  portrait  in  the  next  room  (No.  859), 
done  at  about  sixty-one,  which  is  just  as  sure  and 
true  in  touch  as  this  portrait  of  Helene. 

Never  mind  now  about  conjuring  up  Greek  types 
or  thinking  about  sleeping  Venuses  by  Titian  or 
Giorgione,  but  look  at  this  picture  as  an  exact,  un- 
idealised  rendering  of  a  Flemish  beauty  of  the  Ru- 
bens time.  Stand  back  and  study  a  moment  the 
luminous  flesh,  the  fine,  girlish  face,  the  splendid 
dark  setting  of  the  black  pelisse.  If  you  have  theo- 
ries of  art  founded  on  tactile  values,  what  prevents 


78  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

your  applying  them  here  as  well  as  to  the  figures  of 
Michelangelo  or  Raphael?  Is  not  this  figure  just 
as  touchable,  just  as  actual,  just  as  real  in  the  third 
dimension,  or  in  the  first  or  second,  as  any  figure  by 
any  Renaissance  Italian?  What  perfect  flesh  it  is  I 
The  figure  is  a  little  fat,  a  little  flabby  and  wanting 
in  muscle.  The  arms  are  soft,  the  hands  equally 
so,  the  knees  a  little  bruised  and  red  from  kneeling, 
the  feet  and  toes  a  little  distorted  from  wearing 
shoes.  There  is  no  attempt  to  disguise  these  fea- 
tures. The  painter  is  telling  the  absolute  truth,  un- 
abashed and  unashamed.  As  a  result,  what  convic- 
tion the  figure  brings  with  it !  The  very  stiffness  and 
awkwardness  of  the  legs — the  strain  upon  them — 
makes  the  figure  stand  well;  the  bulk  of  the  shoul- 
der, the  push  out  of  the  stomach  gives  weight.  You 
can't  get  away  from  the  positive  truth  of  it.  Nor 
from  the  beauty  of  it.  It  is  the  result  of  a  trained 
eye  and  an  unerring  hand  working  upon  an  object 
that  the  painter  loved.  It  could  not  be  otherwise 
than  beautiful.  Some  portions  of  the  fur  were 
merely  indicated  and  some  (along  the  hip)  have 
been  retouched  by  a  later  hand.  There  is,  too, 
some  appearance  of  repainting  in  the  hair,  but  these 
are  minor  matters.  Notice  the  embroidered  bor- 
ders of  the  pelisse,  or  the  tassel  on  the  red  cushion 
if  you  imagine  that  at  fifty-five  Rubens's  hand  had 
lost  its  cunning.  This  picture,  in  connection  with 
the  painter's  own  portrait  (No.  859),  is  the  criterion 
for  all  Rubens's  later  portrait  work  wherever  seen. 

859.    Portrait  of  the  Painter.     Done  when  Rubens 

**  was  evidently  about  sixty-one  years  of  age  and  a 
little  later  than  the  Helene  Fourment  (No.  829). 
His  hand  had  not  failed  in  the  least  but  at  sixty- 
one  he  did  not  bother  much  with  small  details.  In 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  79 

this  picture,  for  instance,  he  indicated  the  gloved 
hand  and  was  not  too  particular  about  the  un- 
gloved one.  But  in  the  face  nothing  is  skimped  or 
neglected.  The  old  man  in  him  is  now  becoming 
apparent.  He  has  shrunk  a  little  from  his  earlier 
portrait  with  Isabella  Brandt  in  the  Munich  Gal- 
lery (No.  782).  The  face  is  somewhat  weazened 
and  drawn,  grown  flabby  in  the  cheeks,  a  little 
baggy  under  the  eyes,  a  little  small  and  dull  in  the 
eyes  themselves,  with  some  wrinkles  about  the 
neck  and  chin  and  a  flushed  colour  on  the  face. 
From  his  hand  and  face  in  this  portrait  a  physician 
might  diagnose  a  case  of  gout — the  disease  from 
which  Rubens  afterward  died.  How  remorselessly 
he  sets  down  all  of  these  features,  just  as  he  painted 
the  pulpy  knees  and  distorted  feet  of  his  wife, 
Helene  Fourment!  He  will  not  tell  a  falsehood 
about  things  so  intimate  and  personal  to  themselves. 
There  they  are,  and  that  is  the  way  they  looked, 
whether  you  like  the  look  or  not.  But  you  cannot 
help  liking  both  of  them.  This  portrait  of  Rubens 
shows  a  man  of  great  intelligence  with  an  aristo- 
cratic bearing  and  a  sense  of  poise  or  aplomb. 
How  quietly  and  dignified  he  stands  there,  dressed 
like  a  gentleman,  with  a  wonderful  white  ruff,  a 
black  hat  and  cloak,  his  hand  resting  on  his  sword! 
How  the  hat  and  its  shadow,  the  hair  and  its  curl, 
the  beard  and  moustache,  the  flesh-notes,  the  dark 
robe  are  given!  There  is  no  better  portraiture 
than  this.  The  face  and  figure  are  just  as  perfect 
after  their  kind  as  anything  done  by  Titian  or 
Velasquez.  And  do  you  notice  that  here  Rubens 
abandons  the  bright  colours  of  his  Charles  the 
Bold,  and  even  the  more  sober  tints  of  less  decora- 
tive work,  and  now  drifts  into  greys,  whites,  and 
blacks  like  old  Frans  Hals  at  Haarlem? 


80  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

855.    Man   with   Grey  Hair  and  Beard.     A  sketchy 

*  portrait  but  excellent  in  every  way.     It  is  almost 
perfect   in   its   modelling   of   the   forehead,   nose, 
eyes,  and  mouth.     Evidently  a  late  portrait  and 
done  in  the  style  of  No.  859,  the  ruff  and  the  fur 
collar  giving  a  little  more  colour.     What  a  ruff  it 
is  and  how  well  the  head  settles  into  it!    The 
handling  is  free  but  not  careless  or  ineffective. 
Every  stroke  counts  and  means  something  in  the 
general  effect. 

874.   Portrait    of   a    Woman.     This    portrait    was 

cleaned  until  the  necklace  and  linen  had  almost 
disappeared  and  then  clumsily  repainted.  It  is 
doubtful  if  Rubens  ever  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

836 1  Portraits   of  Men.     Two   excellent   portraits 

838  /  sketchily  done  in  the  manner  of  No.  855  but  very 

*  effective,  truthful,  and  decorative  as  colour.    They 
have  the  truth  of  a  master  mind  and  the  quality 
of  a  master  brush.     They  are  virile,  living,  per- 
sonal, positive.     Stand  back  in  the  middle  of  the 
room  and  see  how  splendidly  they  are  modelled, 
lighted,  painted. 

844.    Titian's    Daughter   Lavinia.     This    is    a    sup- 
posed copy  by  Rubens  of  the  Titian  in  the  Dresden 
Gallery  (No.  170).     The  copy  is  much  better  pre- 
served than  the  original  and  contains  small  details 
now  lost  in  the  Dresden  picture.     It  is  also  said 
to  be  a  copy  of  what  is  catalogued  as  a  Paolo  Vero- 
nese in  the  Bosch  Collection,  Madrid. 

845.    Isabella   d'Este.     To  be   compared  with  the 

supposed  Titian  original  (No.  163)  in  the  Italian 
section  of  this  gallery  for  the  variation  of  the  copy- 
ist.    The  conclusion  must  be  that  the  variation  is 
too  great.     The  Rubens  copy  is  surely  from  an- 


SARTO,  ANDREA  DEL  81 

other  portrait  of  Isabella.  Whether  it  is  a  good 
or  bad  copy  as  regards  faithfulness  to  the  original 
no  one  can  say.  It  is  now  more  remarkable  for 
its  wonderful  reds  than  its  characterisation  though 
it  is  not  lacking  in  individuality. 

873.    Isabella  of  Spain.     There  is  nothing  about  it 

to  point  to  Rubens.  It  is  doubtful  if  he  ever  saw 
the  picture. 

878A.    Rubens,  School  of.     Holy  Family.     It  is  too 

pretty  in  the  surfaces,  the  flesh,  the  robes  for  Ru- 
bens, but  is  very  likely  a  picture  after  Rubens  by 
some  such  person  as  Gerard  Seghers  who  worked 
in  this  style. 

1337.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  Landscape.  A  huge, 
rather  dark,  and  somewhat  prosaic  Ruisdael  that 
breaks  down  both  as  convention  and  as  decoration. 
It  is  wearisome. 

39.  Sarto,  Andrea  del.  Pieta.  The  composition  is 
an  oval  on  a  square — the  placing  of  three  upright 
figures  in  contrast  and  yet  in  accord  with  a  re- 
cumbent figure.  The  whole  group  is  well  placed 
on  the  panel  but  there  the  virtues  of  the  picture 
seem  to  end.  All  of  the  figures  push  out  of  the 
picture  because  there  is  no  atmospheric  setting. 
The  dead  Christ  is  rather  well  done,  but,  generally 
speaking,  the  drawing  is  angular — knotty  in  the 
knuckles  of  the  hands,  cramped  in  the  feet.  Again, 
all  the  right  eyes  seem  to  be  "off "  in  drawing  and 
the  background  seems  to  be  "off"  in  tone  and  in 
hue.  The  colour  is  crude  in  blues,  greens,  yellows, 
orange.  The  picture  has  been  hurt  and  is  now  an 
inferior  Andrea.  The  workshop  picture  (No.  42) 
seems  better  than  this  genuine  example. 


82  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

208.  Savoldo,  Girolamo.  Entombment.  It  is  fairly 
well  drawn  but  too  smooth  in  surface.  The  figure 
of  Christ  is  rather  good  though  distorted  in  the  ribs 
and  badly  wrenched  in  the  hips.  The  attendant 
figures  are  mediocre.  The  distance  in  hill  and  sky 
is  excellent. 

213.   Aristotle  ?    As  a  single  figure  it  is  not  bad  nor 

yet  very  good.  It  is  one  of  those  many  figures  in 
Italian  art  about  which  one  does  not  say  anything 
in  either  praise  or  blame.  The  dress  is  dark  green, 
the  flesh  red.  Formerly  known  as  a  Palma. 

1435  \  Schauffelein,  Hans  Leonhard.  Portraits  of  a 
1437  J  Man  and  a  Woman.  A  pair  of  portraits  very  easily 
and  surely  done  by  a  man  who  understood  the  craft 
of  portrait-painting  very  well.  The  personality  of 
the  woman  is  the  more  attractive.  Notice  the 
outline  of  the  face  and  the  doing  of  the  hair.  The 
colour  is  a  little  monotonous. 

261.    Schiavone,     Andrea.     Adoration    of    Shepherds. 

It  is  excellent  in  colour  and  with  a  fine  setting  of 
suggested  landscape.  It  has  been  badly  treated, 
which  has  not  hurt  the  general  colour  effect,  though 
it  has  rather  wrecked  the  drawing.  Now  little 
more  than  decorative  colour  with  a  hint  at  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Adoration. 

1490.  Schongauer,  Martin.  Holy  Family.  What  a 
*  very  charming  bit  of  colour!  The  drawing  is  a 
little  sharp  and  the  drapery  perhaps  angular — 
wanting  in  simplicity  and  largeness  after  the  man- 
ner of  German  painters  of  the  period — but  as  a 
whole  the  work  is  excellent. 

51.    Sodoma,  II  (Giovanni  Antonio  Bazzi).    Holy 
Family.     It  seems  a  poor,  decadent  affair  not  only 


STRIGEL,  BERNHARD  83 

in  sentiment  but  in  workmanship.  The  drawing 
and  colour  are  weak.  It  is  disagreeable  in  its  blue 
and  red  robes,  its  whitewashed  flesh.  The  harsh- 
ness of  the  light  and  colour  swamp  any  attempt 
at  good  drawing. 

82A.  Solario,  Andrea.  Head  of  John  Baptist.  A 
new  picture  in  the  gallery.  It  is  sharply  drawn 
and  smoothly  painted,  with  the  result  of  a  hard, 
tin-like  surface.  It  is  not  a  good  Solario. 
620.  Spanish  School.  Portrait  of  a  Boy.  This  por- 
trait probably  came  out  of  the  Sanchez  Coello 
workshop  but  is  a  good  deal  better  than  the  usual 
products  of  that  shop.  It  has  life  about  it,  is  well 
drawn,  and  is  good  in  colour.  Look  at  the  table- 
cloth and  the  fruit  upon  it.  How  well  they  are 
done! 

1304.  Steen,  Jan.     Peasant  Wedding-Feast.     The    boy 

with  the  warming-pan,  the  bride,  the  mother  are 
well  enough  done,  but  the  picture  is  not  a  first-rate 
Steen.  It  is  one  of  his  pot-boilers  containing  clever 
spots  here  and  there. 

1305.   Gay  Life.    It  is  a  large  picture  but  not  well 

painted.      The  room  is  poorly  rendered  and  the 
figures  in  it  carelessly  done.     Look  closely  at  the 
painting  of  the  young  woman's  dress.     Moreover, 
the  picture  is  deficient  in  both  light  and  colour. 
Somewhat  hurt  by  repainting. 

1425.  Strigel,  Bernhard.  Emperor  Maximilian  and 
Family.  The  picture  is,  perhaps,  more  important 
historically  for  the  people  painted  than  the  work 
of  the  painter,  howbeit  it  is  well  done  and  doubt- 
less with  much  fidelity  to  the  originals.  The  blue 
landscape  makes  a  decorative  ground  for  the  fig- 
ures. 


84  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

1426.    Emperor  Maximilian  I.     It  is  much  more  of 

a  picture  than  No.  1425  and  more  of  a  portrait. 
It  is  beautifully  painted  in  the  hair,  cap,  chain, 
robe,  and  has  a  fine  landscape. 

1428.    King  Ludwig  II  as  a  Child.     The  best  of  all 

these  small  portraits  of  royalty.     It  is  not  only 
excellent  as  portraiture  but  very  lovely  as  colour. 
The  fine  blue  ground,  the  hair,  the  fillet  of  flowers, 
the  dress,  the  jewels  are  all  noteworthy.     As  a 
colour  scheme  the  picture  is  captivating.     And  for 
delicate  line  drawing  nothing  could  be  more  per- 
fect.    Look  at  the  outline  of  the  cheek  and  chin 
or  the  drawing  of  the  eyes  and  nose. 

1429.    Emperor   Maximilian    I.     A   handsome   por- 
trait in  colour,  character,  drawing,  but  it  has  not 
the  quality  or  delicacy  of  No.  1428. 

1155.  Teniers  the  Younger,  David.  Abraham's  Offer- 
ing. An  important  Teniers  and  extremely  well 
done  for  so  large  a  picture.  The  sentiment  of  it 
is  very  good.  The  drawing  in  the  Abraham  is  not 
the  best  but  this  is  atoned  for  by  colour.  Isaac 
in  white  is  the  central  spot  in  the  picture.  The 
sky  is  unusual  for  Teniers.  The  realism  of  the 
bundle  of  sticks  is  worth  noting.  Several  features 
of  this  picture  seem  to  point  to  the  influence  of 
Steen — a  younger  painter. 

1366.  Terborch,  Gerard.  Apple-Peeling.  What  a 
charming  home-life  scene  out  of  Holland,  with  the 
mother  (a  widow?)  peeling  apples  and  the  inter- 
ested child  looking  up  at  her  askance!  And  what 
fine  apples  in  that  perfect  china  dish!  The  fig- 
ures are  well  done  and  the  whole  picture  is  most 
attractive  in  colour,  light,  and  air.  Perhaps  the 


TINTORETTO,  JACOPO  85 

blue  table-cloth  is  a  bit  jarring.  The  picture  has 
the  quality  and  some  of  the  look  of  a  Vermeer  of 
Delft. 

243A.  Tintoretto,  Domenico.  The  Doge  Nicolb  da 
Ponte.  It  is  possibly  the  same  sitter  as  shown  in 
No.  256.  The  ducal  robes  are  voluminous  and 
enfolding,  with  great,  wave-like  loops.  The  cap 
glitters  like  a  ruby.  The  head  is  well  drawn.  Evi- 
dently much  repainted. 

256.    Portrait  of  a  Procurator  of  St.  Mark.      The 

drawing  is  not  very  sure  and  the  portrait  has  been 
harmed  by  repainting,  and  yet  it  is  still  very  much 
in  the  Tintoretto  style  though  not  by  Jacopo  Tin- 
toretto. A  good  portrait. 

257,    Portrait  of  Young  Man  with  Red  Beard.     The 

type  is  a  fine  one,  but  the  work  seems  rather  care- 
lessly done.  The  hands,  face,  and  beard  are  oddly 
painted,  which  means  that  they  have  probably  been 
repainted. 

254.  Tintoretto,  Jacopo  (Robusti).  Hercules  and 
Omphale.  The  composition  is  somewhat  scattered 
over  the  canvas,  and  the  centre  is  empty  of  lead- 
ing figure  or  strong  light.  The  result  is  a  distri- 
bution rather  than  a  centralisation  of  interest. 
The  nude  figures  at  right  and  left  are  graceful,  but 
they  are  too  small  in  type  for  Tintoretto.  The 
work  is  probably  by  some  pupil. 

417.    St.  Jerome.     If  this  is  by  the  younger  Palma 

*  (so  given  in  1912)  it  must  be  accounted  one  of  his 
masterpieces.  The  difficulty  in  accepting  such  an 
attribution  is  that  it  outdoes  any  other  perform- 
ance of  his.  It  is  nearer  to  Tintoretto.  The  head 
is  the  weak  feature  of  it,  and  the  modelling  of  the 


86  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

figure  wants  in  that  vigour  and  accent  such  as  Tin- 
toretto gave;  but  it  may  have  been  prettified  by 
restorations.  The  flesh  in  its  clearness  and  lumi- 
nosity is  excellent,  the  setting  and  the  colour  are 
both  good,  and  the  landscape  is  fine.  [Since  this 
note  was  written — but  before  its  publication — the 
attribution  has  been  changed  and  the  picture  as- 
signed to  Tintoretto.] 

236.  Portrait  of  Sebastiano  Veniero.  This  is  a 

picture  portrait  and  the  necessity  of  telling  about 
the  battle  of  Lepanto  at  the  back  (Veniero  was  the 
admiral  in  command  there)  probably  led  to  the 
portrait  being  somewhat  sacrificed  to  the  story  of 
the  fight.  It  suffers  from  a  lack  of  simplicity. 
Moreover,  the  head  is  now  flat  and  cheaply  painted, 
while  the  armour  is  also  coarsely  done,  protrusive, 
and  glittering.  The  colour  is  a  little  raw,  and  the 
sea  and  sky  are  raw,  too.  It  looks  like  a  copy. 

244.  Man  in  Armour.  The  armour  is  very  brilliant 

in  the  high  lights  and  glitters  somewhat  like  that 
in  the  Veniero  portrait  (No.  236).  It  is  somewhat 
weak  and  over-smooth  in  handling  for  Tintoretto, 
though  it  is  in  his  style.  Notice  the  poor  handling 
of  the  beard,  or,  for  that  matter,  the  armour. 

239.    Susanna  and  the  Elders.     The  drawing  of  the 

*  figure  is  large  and  comprehensive,  but  not  so  lumpy 
as  the  Susanna  of  the  Louvre  (No.  1464).  The 
light-and-shade  of  the  figure  is  also  excellent,  and 
the  flesh  is  remarkable  for  its  whiteness,  its  lumi- 
nosity. It  is  a  fine  figure  and  almost  startling  in  its 
brilliancy  of  light.  There,  however,  the  interest 
in  the  picture  ends.  The  composition  is  cut  in  two 
by  the  trellis  of  vines,  around  which  one  of  the 
elders  is  looking,  and  the  landscape  on  either  side 


TINTORETTO,  JACOPO  87 

of  the  trellis  is  unbelievable  because  unrelated  to 
the  other  side.  There  are  too  many  disturbing 
objects  in  the  picture.  Moreover,  the  surface  has 
been  much  cleaned,  which  may  account  for  some 
of  the  present  whiteness  of  the  figure  of  Susanna. 
Notice  the  glitter  of  the  silver  vase. 

239A.    The  Philosopher.     A  tall  figure  with  a  small 

head  and  a  large,  freely  handled  robe.  It  is  an 
odd  Tintoretto — the  head  being  curious  in  its 
placing  on  the  body  and  the  figure  filling  the  niche 
with  some  strain  at  originality  of  pose.  The  color 
is  very  good,  the  hand  and  the  feet  well  drawn, 
and  the  robe  handsomely  disposed.  A  new  picture 
in  the  gallery.  The  same  hand  did  the  Tintoretto  in 
the  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York  (No.  T49-2). 

224.    Portrait  of  Marc   Antonio   Barbara.     It  is   a 

strong  head,  and  there  is  a  back  to  the  head — a 
third  dimension.  The  hands  are  also  well  drawn. 
The  fur-lined  robe  is  excellent  in  colour,  though 
the  red  sleeves  are,  perhaps,  unduly  striped  with 
high  lights  and  made  uneasy  thereby.  Formerly 
ascribed  to  Paolo  Veronese  and  it  is  not  now  exactly 
at  home  under  the  name  of  Tintoretto.  But  it  is 
a  good  portrait. 

241.    Apollo  and  the  Muses.     Graceful  but  a  trifle 

thin  for  Tintoretto.  The  same  subject  was  re- 
peated a  number  of  times  by  members  of  Tinto- 
retto's School,  and  this  is  probably  some  school 
variation. 

235.    Portrait  of  Old  Man  and  Boy.     The  old  man 

is  heavy  and  lumpy,  with  a  listless  or  preoccu- 
pied look  and  limp  hands.  He  is  not  aware  of 
the  boy  or  the  boy  of  him.  In  fact,  the  boy  seems 


88  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

a  thing  apart,  lugged  into  the  picture  by  the  ears. 
The  picture  is  now  hurt,  and  perhaps  it  was  never 
very  good.  The  man  and  his  chair  both  keep 
pushing  forward  out  of  the  frame.  It  is  hardly 
by  Tintoretto. 

250.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     This  is  the  same  story 

that  we  meet  with  frequently  in  Tintoretto's  por- 
traits. It  was  fine  originally  but  is  now  blackened 
and  damaged.  And  then,  again,  perhaps  Tinto- 
retto never  saw  it.  There  are  a  bewildering  num- 
ber of  senatorial  portraits  put  down  to  Tintoretto, 
but  no  one  believes  that  he  did  all  of  them. 

245.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  is  not  a  good  portrait 

but  still  comes  nearer  to  Tintoretto  than  most  of 
the  portraits  here  assigned  to  him. 

249.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  The  type  and  the  pres- 
ence are  excellent.  Excellent,  too,  the  colour  of  the 
reddish  hair  and  the  dark,  wine-red  dress.  The 
hands  suggest  a  Titian  follower,  but  there  is  no 
certainty  about  his  identity.  Crowe  and  Caval- 
caselle  thought  the  portrait  was  by  Schiavone. 

234.    Lucretia.     A  suggestion  of  Tintoretto  shows  in 

the  sleeve  at  the  right  and  also  in  the  high  lights  of 
the  robe;  a  suspicion  of  Titian  appears  in  the  white 
dress  and  the  hand.  But  neither  painter  did  the 
picture.  It  is  a  composite  affair  by  some  Venetian 
eclectic  and  is  not  too  good  or  true  in  either  senti- 
ment or  technique.  Formerly  ascribed  to  Titian. 

255.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     The  head  is  big  and  heavy, 

the  eyes  glittering,  the  cheek-bones  prominent,  the 
high  light  on  the  hair  sharp  and  disturbing,  the 
hand  rather  monstrous.  It  is  coarse,  ungracious 
portraiture  and  not  characteristic  of  Tintoretto. 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  89 

150.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).  Portrait  of  Fabrizio 
Salvaresio.  It  is  a  poor,  wooden  affair  as  regards 
the  portrait,  and  the  accessories,  such  as  the  negro 
page,  do  not  help  it  out  to  any  extent.  Look  at  the 
sad  drawing  of  the  nose.  The  background  is  little 
more  than  so  much  brown  paint.  It  has  been  in- 
jured. 

154.  Portrait  of  Filippo  Strozzi.  This  portrait  has 

the  look  of  a  Paolo  Veronese,  though  the  hand  sug- 
gests Titian  and  some  of  the  drawing  of  the  head. 
It  is  a  bit  weak  for  Titian  and  not  quite  represen- 
tative of  Paolo  Veronese.  Attribution  very  ques- 
tionable. 

161.  Woman  Taken  in  Adultery.  The  picture  was 

probably  never  finished  and  is  now  still  further 
distorted  by  cleaning  and  repainting.  It  was  never 
a  good  piece  of  drawing  and  is  certainly  not  now 
a  work  of  much  importance.  The  colour  is  dull, 
and  a  feeling  of  brown  paint  is  omnipresent. 
Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  thought  it  an  original  by 
Padovanino.  It  is  hardly  an  original  by  Titian. 

163.  Portrait  of  Isabella  d'Este.  An  interesting 

portrait  historically.  Artistically  it  is  one  of 
Titian's  studies  in  blues  and  not  too  attractive. 
It  has  a  crude,  staring  look  from  much  repainting, 
and  perhaps  the  look  of  the  young  girl  is  somewhat 
distorted  by  the  restorer.  The  hands  and  dress 
have  been  repainted  as  well  as  the  face.  It  should 
be  compared  with  the  supposed  copy  of  it  by  Rubens 
in  another  room  of  this  gallery  (No.  845).  The 
Rubens  is  probably  a  copy  of  a  different  portrait  of 
Isabella. 

166.  Madonna  and  Saints.  In  common  with  almost 

all  the  early  Titians,  this  picture  is  lofty  in  the 


90  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

conception  of  the  types  and  refined  in  its  feeling. 
Again,  it  is  excellent  in  colour.  In  some  other  re- 
spects, especially  in  drawing,  it  is  weak  and  a 
little  thin.  It  should  be  examined  for  Titian's 
early  work  and  his  manner  of  composition.  There 
is  another  version  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1577).  This 
Vienna  picture  seems  the  better  of  the  two  though 
it  is  now  much  repainted.  Morelli  thought  it  shop 
work  or  a  copy  and  the  Louvre  example  the  orig- 
inal. 

167.   Portrait  of  Parma.     A  tremendous  figure  with 

*  much  bulk  and  presence  and  great  repose.    What 
aplomb  in  the  figure  with  its  breadth  and  huge 
robe!    There  are  truth  and  force  in  the  fine  head, 
together  with  good  drawing  and  painting.     Titian 
may  not  have  done  it,  and  yet  it  is  good  enough 
for  him.     A  fine  portrait  but  now  somewhat  hurt. 
See  the  catalogue  note  for  attributions. 

169.   Diana  and  Calisto.     There  are  several  versions 

of  this  picture,  the  most  notable  being  that  belong- 
ing to  the  Earl  of  Ellesmere,  in  London.  The  fig- 
ures here  are  slight  and  a  bit  too  pretty  for  Titian. 
It  is  probably  a  school  piece.  Somewhat  repainted. 

174.   Dande.    This  figure  is  well  known  through 

various  copies  and  also  in  photographic  reproduc- 
tions. There  are  several  versions  or  variations — 
notably  at  Madrid  and  Naples — the  Naples  picture 
perhaps,  being  the  best  preserved.  See  the  note  on 
the  Madrid  example.  This  Vienna  picture  is  prob- 
ably a  school  version.  It  is  not  well  done. 

176.    Madonna  and  Child  (Gipsy  Madonna).     The 

*  type,  the  colour,  the  background  banner,  the  land- 
scape and  clouds  are  very  Giorgionesque — so  much 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  91 

so  that  the  picture  might  be  placed  nearer  to  Gior- 
gione  than  was  the  early  Titian.  The  attribution 
is  at  least  questionable.  The  Madonna  and  St. 
Roch  picture  at  Madrid,  at  one  time  called  a  Gior- 
gione  but  now  put  down  to  Pordenone,  shows  us 
the  identical  Madonna  model  of  this  picture.  The 
eyes,  brows,  nose,  chin,  hair,  forehead  should  be 
compared  with  the  Castelfranco  Madonna.  The 
Child,  too,  will  bear  comparison.  The  picture  is 
coarsely  drawn  and  is  probably  by  the  painter  of 
the  Madrid  picture.  Both  of  them  are  too  lax, 
technically,  for  Giorgione,  but  they  are  near  him 
— by  some  follower  of  his  other  than  Titian.  The 
picture  has  much  charm  though  now  badly  re- 
painted in  the  faces,  figures,  hands,  and  sky.  The 
colour  is  rich  in  reds  and  greens. 

177.    Portrait   of  Benedetto    Varchi.     The   portrait 

is  Titianesque  in  pose  and  in  the  hands,  but  the 
sitter  is  heavy  in  personality  and  the  picture  all 
through  is  as  dull  as  ditch  water.     It  is  late  work 
and  has  been  repainted. 

178.   Ecce  Homo.    This  is  a  strange  and  confusing 

Titian.     The  purely  human    Christ  is  frail   and 
tottering  through  physical  weakness,  the  Pontius 
Pilate  (probably  an  Aretino  portrait)  is  brutal  in 
impersonation  and  rather  dreadful  in  blue  colour- 
ing, the  white  figure  of  the  girl  in  the  centre  seems 
diminutive  and  out  of  scale,  and  the  boy  on  the 
steps  with  the  dog  is  probably  as  good  as  any  part 
of  the  canvas.     The  conception  is  of  a  casual  crowd, 
a  rabble  scattered  here  and  there.     The  composi- 
tion rambles,  lacks  in  centralisation,  is  not  held  to- 
gether.    The  colour  is  brilliant  in  spots  but  again 
seems  to  lack  in  unity.    The  whole  picture  was 


92  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

more  or  less  of  an  experiment  and  not  an  altogether 
successful  one.  It  looks  like  poor  shop  work.  Hurt 
by  repainting. 

180.    Holy  Family  (Madonna  of  the  Cherries).     An 

**  early  Titian  painted  on  wood  and  in  fairly  good 
condition.  The  colours  are  clear  and  bright,  have 
resonance,  and,  taken  in  part  or  in  whole,  are  stim- 
ulating, appealing,  altogether  charming.  The  red 
and  blue  of  the  Madonna's  dress,  the  red  and  gold 
of  the  brocade  at  the  back,  the  cherries  on  the 
parapet  and  held  in  hand  by  the  Madonna  and  the 
Child  are  all  jewel  spots  of  brilliant  colour.  The 
green  and  dark  orange  of  the  side  figures  are  parts 
of  the  well-planned  colour  scheme.  The  types  and 
the  sentiment  are  both  characteristic  of  Titian's 
early  work — lofty,  noble,  sincere,  most  attractive. 
A  very  charming  picture. 

181.    Tambourine  Player.     Perhaps  this  is  a  part 

of  some  larger  picture.    The  patching  of  the  canvas 
seems  to  suggest  it.     Yet  Teniers  painted  it  in  one 
of  his  picture-gallery  canvases  in  its  present  shape. 
The  little  figure  is  bright,  childlike,  playful,  en- 
gaging, perhaps  not  so  attractive  as  the  cupids  in 
the  Worship  of  Venus  at  Madrid  (No.  419)  though 
possibly  done  at  about  the  same  time.     The  back- 
ground is  poor  in  trees  and  sky  except  at  the  left. 
Stained  (notably  in  the  parapet  and  tambourine) 
and  injured  by  repainting.     A  cupid  of  similar 
setting  in  the  Vienna  Academy  (No.  466),  assigned 
to  Titian. 

182.    Portrait  of  Jacopo  di  Strada.     Rather  good 

in  its  greys  and  blacks  but  not  a  great  Titian. 
There  are  too  many  objects  in  the  picture.     The 
statuette,  the  books,  the  column,  to  say  nothing 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  93 

of  the  ornate  costume,  are  distracting.  The  por- 
trait has  features  that  suggest  Paolo  Veronese  as 
its  painter.  The  sleeves  and  their  colour,  the  fur, 
the  turn  and  bend  of  the  head  seem  more  like  Paolo 
than  Titian.  Much  injured,  as  notice  the  surface 
of  the  statuette. 

186.   Nymph  and  Shepherd.     The  picture  is  a  late 

one  and  perhaps  was  never  finished.  To-day  it 
seems  heavy  in  the  modelling,  especially  in  the 
nymph.  The  weight  is  ponderous  but  not  precisely 
clumsy.  There  is  rhythm  of  line  in  the  figure  and 
unity  in  the  group.  The  colour  is  of  no  marked 
importance  and  the  landscape  is  painty.  Perhaps 
this  condition  was  brought  about  by  repainting. 
The  picture  is  in  bad  condition  and  much  injured. 

191.    Portrait   of  John    Frederick,  Elector  of  Han- 

*  over.     The  type  is  coarse  enough  but  the  head  is 
very  well  drawn.     The  sitter  looks  somewhat  like 
a  marmot  but  is  not  devoid  of  keen  intelligence. 
The  modelling  of  the  fat  neck  and  ear  is  noticeably 
good  as  also  the  fat  hands.     The  body  is  a  little 
flat.     The  handling  is  peculiar  and  reminds  one 
of  the  Aretino  portrait  in  the  Pitti  Gallery.     The 
brush  dips  much  into  dark  greys  or  blackish  pig- 
ments.    A  grey  ground.     Somewhat  hurt  by  re- 
painting. 

197.    Girl  in  Fur  Coat.     A  portrait  that  recalls  the 

*  so-called  Duchess  of  Urbino  in  the  Pitti  (No.  18) 
and  brings  up  comparison  with  Helene  Fourment 
in  her  fur  pelisse  in  another  room  of  this  gallery. 
This  is,  perhaps,  more  refined  in  spirit  and  feeling 
than  the  Rubens,  but  it  has  not  now  the  drawing 
or  the  modelling  of  the  latter.     The  picture  is 
much  injured,  and  the  fine  face  with  its  inquiring 


94  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

look  is  now  hard  in  the  brows  and  fumbled  in  the 
hair,  while  the  chest  and  arms  are  rubbed  flat. 
There  is  a  brown  ground  to  match  the  fur  and  cloth. 

198.    Portrait  of  Titian's  Daughter  Lavinia.     This 

portrait  is  large  and  heavy  with  much-rubbed 
hands  and  neck.  There  is  also  some  repainting 
apparent.  The  feathers  are  now  a  little  out  of 
value,  the  right  hand  is  injured,  the  shoulder  stained 
or  repainted,  the  background  darkened.  It  is  some 
sort  of  workshop  piece  or  perhaps  a  copy. 

90.  Tura,  Cosimo.  The  Dead  Christ.  No  one  who 
knows  anything  about  Cosimo  Tura's  colour  in  his 
untouched  panels  can  believe  in  the  surface  of  this 
picture  for  a  moment.  It  is  raw,  skinned,  white- 
washed— what  you  please — but  nowhere  near  the 
original  surface.  All  the  colours  now  cry  out  and 
the  high  lights  are  a  mockery. 

738.  Valckenborch,  Lucas  van.  Mountain  Land- 
*  scape.  We  might  think  such  a  landscape  as  this 
very  wonderful  if  we  had  not  seen  the  works  of 
the  Brueghels,  who  influenced  Valckenborch.  The 
Brueghels'  best  pictures  are  here  in  this  same  room 
with  the  Valckenborchs,  and  by  contrast  they  hurt 
the  latter.  They  are  stronger  in  colour,  less  formal 
in  arrangement,  more  original  in  thought,  firmer 
and  better  in  execution.  Yet  no  one  can  pass  by 
this  mountain  landscape  by  Valckenborch  without 
an  exclamation.  It  is  beautiful  in  colour,  broad 
in  its  sweep,  large  in  its  feeling.  It  is  not  cunningly 
or  cleverly  done,  however.  The  handling  is  crude. 
See  the  doing  of  the  trees. 

732.    Valley  Landscape.     This  and  No.  738  are,  per- 
haps, the  best  of  the  Valckenborchs  here.      The 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  95 

snow  scene  (No.  736)  has  some  attempt  at  origi- 
nality in  the  falling  snow  but  is  too  obvious  in  the 
snowflakes.  The  other  large  pictures  are  formal 
and  regular  but  not  much  more  than  topographical. 
They  lack  quality  and  originality. 
621.  Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Portrait  of  the 
**  Infanta  Margarita  Teresa.  This  picture  is  prac- 
tically a  replica  of  the  picture  in  the  Madrid  Gal- 
lery (No.  1192).  In  some  respects  it  is  better  than 
the  Madrid  picture — notably  in  the  beautiful,  silvery 
tone  of  the  dress,  in  the  hair,  perhaps  in  the  round- 
ing and  modelling  of  the  childish  face,  and  in  the 
delightful  scheme  of  colour.  The  figure  is  a  bit 
large  for  the  canvas,  as  with  the  Madrid  picture, 
and  while  some  parts  of  it,  such  as  the  handker- 
chief, the  flowers,  the  sleeves,  the  Tuffs,  and  the 
bow,  are  beautifully  done,  other  portions  seem  less 
happy,  as  though,  perhaps,  another  hand  than  that 
of  Velasquez  had  been  at  work.  The  alien  hand 
seems  apparent  in  the  red  bow  at  the  left  of  the 
head,  the  dark  streaks  of  shadow  in  the  dress  (a 
peculiarity  of  Mazo),  the  high  lights  on  the  staff  at 
the  left,  and  the  spotting  with  white  paint  on  the 
huge  skirt  for  brilliancy  of  effect.  Possibly  a  pupil 
finished  the  picture  after  the  death  of  Velasquez, 
and  yet  there  is  little  about  it  that  might  not  have 
been  done  by  Velasquez  and  is  not  good  enough  for 
him.  As  a  piece  of  colour  it  is  (like  its  Madrid 
prototype)  the  most  beautiful  thing  in  painting 
imaginable.  Notice  here,  as  there,  the  Velasquez 
reds,  the  mauves  in  the  sleeves,  the  dull  reds  and 
golds  in  the  curtain,  the  predominant  silver  note. 
The  Infanta  herself  is,  perhaps,  a  little  staring  in 
the  eyes  and  not  so  fine  in  characterisation  as  Nos. 
611  and  615.  The  picture  is  fine  in  ensemble,  in 


96  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

aerial  setting,  in  oneness  of  effect.  In  fact,  one 
has  to  drive  the  contention  rather  hard  to  find 
fault  with  it  at  all.  Apparently  it  is  a  little  in- 
jured by  retouching.  Mr.  Ricketts  calls  it  "a 
radiant  variant "  and  "  a  fortunate  sketch/'  while 
Beruete  declares  it  a  copy  of  the  Madrid  picture. 
It  is  an  excellent  picture  whatever  it  be  called. 

615.    Portrait    of    the    Infanta    Margarita    Teresa. 

**  The  sitter  is  the  same  as  in  No.  621.  This  is  an 
earlier  picture  as  the  earlier  age  of  the  Infanta 
suggests.  As  a  whole  it  has  not  the  fine  colour 
quality  of  No.  621.  In  some  respects  it  is  better 
done  while  in  other  features  it  is  not  so  well  done. 
The  blue  curtain  and  table  with  the  blue  flowers 
seem  not  quite  perfect  in  their  tone,  in  their  value. 
They  are  a  trifle  too  dominant.  They  were  put 
in  as  the  cool  note  of  the  picture,  but  it  is  a  ques- 
tion if  they  are  not  too  cool  for  the  geranium- 
pink  dress  and  the  warm  rug.  However,  no  one 
can  feel  that  they  are  much  out  of  place,  out  of 
harmony.  Light  and  air  hold  them  together — 
hold  everything  in  the  picture  together.  The  fig- 
ure sets  in  and  has  its  envelope.  This  envelope 
with  Velasquez  always  keeps  local  colour  in  abey- 
ance. Varying  hues  are  subordinated  to  the  en- 
semble. If  he  departed  here  unconsciously  from 
his  practice  and  favoured  the  cool  blues,  the  devia- 
tion was  slight  and  probably  for  a  purpose  which 
we  do  not  discern. 

What  a  perfect  little  figure  it  is!  What  a  por- 
trait of  a  child!  What  a  characterisation!  The 
little  lady  already  knows  herself  to  be  of  a  superior 
strain  and  has  the  repose  of  those  born  to  rule. 
Yet  she  is  a  child,  standing  there  quietly,  innocently, 
quite  unconscious,  or  at  least  not  affected.  The 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  97 

head  and  face  are  not  up  to  the  supreme  height  of 
treatment  shown  in  the  Louvre  picture  (No.  1731). 
The  hair  is  a  little  chalky  in  the  lights,  the  neck 
shadow  a  little  dark,  the  oval  of  the  face  not  so 
perfect  again  as  in  the  Louvre  picture.  The  dress, 
however,  is  above  any  cavilling.  It  is  not  only  a 
marvel  of  colour  but  also  of  handling.  The  pinks, 
the  silvers,  the  greys,  the  mauves,  the  golds  and 
blacks  are  wonderfully  blended,  beautifully  wrought 
into  drawing,  light,  shadow,  harmony.  The  rug 
falls  down  a  bit  in  front  but  is,  nevertheless,  ex- 
cellent. And  with  what  simple,  true,  and  perfect 
brushing  that  vase  of  flowers  is  put  in!  A  little 
stained  in  the  blue  curtain. 

611.    Portrait  of  the  Infante  Philip  Prosper.     The 

***  reason  for  giving  this  portrait  three  stars  and  only 
two  each  for  Nos.  615  and  621  is  that  this  portrait, 
all  told,  seems  a  little  more  perfect  in  the  workman- 
ship, a  little  more  sympathetic  in  its  characterisa- 
tion of  the  child,  a  little  more  complete  as  a  picture 
than  the  others.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  best  child's 
portrait  now  in  existence  and,  at  the  same  time, 
a  picture  of  the  very  highest  and  finest  quality. 
Consider  the  head  for  a  moment,  with  its  thin, 
childish  hair  and  the  little  skull  so  close  under- 
neath it,  the  protruding  childish  forehead,  the  snub 
nose,  the  wondering  eyes,  the  half -parted  lips.  The 
chin  is  a  little  pointed,  the  shadow  along  the  throat 
and  jaw  not  so  infallibly  right  as  in  the  Infanta  of 
the  Louvre  (No.  1731),  possibly  owing  to  some  re- 
touching in  the  face,  but  still  giving  the  thin  cheek 
and  set-out  ear  of  a  rather  sickly  child.  It  is  all 
just  as  it  should  be  and  very  wonderful  in  what 
the  painter  saw  as  well  as  in  his  manner  of  telling  it. 
The  dress  is  just  as  right,  just  as  true.  How  could 


THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

the  linen  be  given  better  in  drawing  or  texture! 
Notice  how  the  little  bell  and  the  other  charms 
sink  into  it  and  vary  its  value  in  shadow.  How 
one  feels  the  red  of  the  under-dress  through  the 
white!  How  rounded  it  is  and  what  depth  and 
body  it  has!  Notice,  again,  the  fine  notes  in  the 
slashings  of  the  sleeves  or  the  doing  of  the  ruffs  at 
the  wrists.  Notice  also  the  silver  bands  in  the 
red  underskirt.  The  rug  here  seems  better  done 
than  hi  No.  615  and  more  in  harmony  with  the 
reds  and  whites  of  the  figure.  The  cushion  and 
curtain,  too,  are  almost  perfect,  and  as  for  the 
drawing  of  the  chair  it  is  the  very  best  kind  of 
pictorial  eloquence.  You  have  never  seen  and 
probably  never  will  see  again  so  much  speaking 
beauty  in  a  simple  chair  as  here.  It  is  a  picture  in 
itself.  And  the  live,  animated,  absolutely  perfect 
dog!  This  is  all  the  big  work  of  a  great  technician, 
done  simply  and  easily  but  with  the  telling  effect 
that  usually  follows  the  efforts  of  genius. 

Stand  back  now  and  look  finally  at  the  room  and 
its  atmospheric  setting.  The  ensemble  of  it,  the 
unity  of  it  is  once  more  absolute.  All  the  colour 
is  only  so  much  aid  to  this  unity  and  not  a  sepa- 
rate thing  in  itself.  It  is  a  means,  not  an  end 
as  with  a  picture  by  a  Bonifazio  or  a  Veronese. 
The  whole  scene — child  and  all — is  given  as  it 
came  into  the  painter's  vision,  as  he  saw  it.  We 
pick  it  to  pieces  to  admire  its  parts,  but  it  should 
finally  be  seen  as  a  whole,  in  its  entirety,  as  the 
painter  conceived  it.  Merely  a  portrait  of  a  poor, 
sickly  little  child  but  a  picture  with  majesty  and 
greatness  about  it.  "Art  is  a  point  of  view  and 
genius  a  way  of  looking  at  things."  Here  is  the 
illustration  of  it. 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  99 

617.    Portrait  of  the  Infanta  Maria  Teresa.     A  very 

*      good  portrait  but  it  has  not  the  quality  of  the  three 

other  children's  portraits  here  (Nos.  611,  615,  621). 
It  is  an  earlier  picture,  coarser,  not  less  free  in  the 
handling,  but  perhaps  less  happy  in  colour  and  air, 
less  delicate  in  the  modelling  of  the  face.  Compare 
the  quality  of  the  handkerchiefs  here  and  in  No. 
621,  or  the  white  of  the  dress  with  the  whites  in 
No.  611,  and  the  distinction  will  be  apparent.  It 
is  not  merely  a  difference  of  stuffs  but  a  differ- 
ence of  touch,  of  feeling,  of  sensitiveness.  The  face 
may  be  compared  in  the  same  way  with  that  in 
No.  611.  Some  parts  of  it  like  the  wig,  the  neck- 
piece, the  bow,  are  tellingly  done,  and  all  parts  of 
it  are  effective  enough.  It  is  a  splendid  study  in 
whites  and  a  fine  picture,  but  is  not  a  supreme 
finality  such  as,  say,  No.  611.  The  head  in  the 
Louvre  (No.  1735)  may  be  the  preliminary  study 
for  this  picture  or  it  may  be  a  replica  of  the  head 
and  bust  here. 

618.    Portrait  of  the  Infanta  Margarita  Teresa.     It 

is  probably  a  school  work  in  which  the  hand  of 
Velasquez  is  not  so  very  apparent  though  his 
touches  may  be  under  the  restorations  that  now 
mar  it.  You  have  perfect  portraits  by  Velasquez 
here  for  comparison,  so  compare  the  coarsely 
painted  hair  here  with  that  in  No.  621  or  No.  611. 
Compare  also  the  coarse  slashing  of  paint  on  the 
sleeves  and  skirt,  the  bow  on  the  hair  or  breast, 
the  red  curtain  so  devoid  of  fine  colour  sense,  the 
flat,  airless  ground  at  the  back  with  these  features 
in  Nos.  611  and  615  or  even  in  No.  617.  Another 
version  is  in  the  Frankfort  Gallery.  Beruete  thinks 
both  portraits  are  by  Velasquez. 


100  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

622.    Isabella  of  Spain.     It  is  a  school  picture  in 

which  Velasquez's  hand  does  not  appear.  Notice 
that  the  white  pattern  of  the  dress  is  on  the  dress 
and  not  in  it — a  failing  of  Mazo's  as  pointed  out  in 
the  standing  portrait  of  Philip  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, London.  The  ruff  about  the  neck  is  woolly, 
the  wig  heavy  and  painty,  the  head  badly  set  on  the 
shoulders,  the  curtain  and  background  colourless 
and  (in  spite  of  scumbling)  quite  airless.  Notice 
how  badly  the  lower  part  of  the  bodice  forming  a 
V  is  given.  Pieced  out  in  the  upper  corners. 

616.    Portrait  of  the  Infante  Don  Baltasar  Carlos. 

*  Probably  another  school  piece  with  the  pattern  of 
the  dress  painted  in  white  slashes  on  the  cloth  in- 
stead of  in  it.  The  room  is  airless  and  the  figure 
stands  out  from  the  canvas  instead  of  in.  Compare 
the  chair  with  that  in  No.  611  if  you  would  get  the 
difference  between  the  master  and  his  best  pupil — 
Mazo.  The  grey  stockings  are  of  wood  and  the 
bows  at  the  knees  are  made  of  what?  The  same 
hand  that  did  this  painted  the  standing  portrait 
of  Philip  IV  and  the  Admiral  Pulido-Pareja  in 
the  National  Gallery,  London.  It  is  not  a  poor 
portrait — in  fact  the  head  is  excellent — but  it  does 
not  show  us  the  peculiar  Velasquez  way  of  seeing 
and  doing  things,  though,  of  course,  it  is  possible 
he  may  have  had  a  say  about  it  and  touched  it 
here  and  there.  It  is  near  him — as  near  him  as  his 
son-in-law,  Mazo. 

612.   Philip  IV.    This  is  a  school  piece  or  a  copy 

after  Velasquez  with  little  or  no  quality  about  it. 
Look  at  the  curtain,  the  distance,  the  glove,  the 
hair,  the  drawing  of  the  face,  the  blacks  of  the  dress. 
It  is  no  such  work  as  you  see  in  Nos.  611  and  615 


VERONESE,  ;PAOLC  101 

hanging  near  it.  Difference  in  the  time  or  cir- 
cumstance of  painting  will  not  account  for  such 
wide  difference  in  work. 

607.   Philip  IV.    It  is  a  copy  of  the  bust  portrait 

of  Philip  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  and  not 
a  good  copy,  either.  Consider  the  crude  doing  of 
the  hair  and  the  bad  drawing  of  the  chin  and  neck. 
It  has  been  scrub'bed  and  over-painted  hi  parts. 

605.    Portrait  of  Queen  Maria  Anna.     An  ill-drawn, 

raw  portrait  that  comes  nowhere  near  Velasquez 
and  must  have  been  done  by  the  least-talented 
pupil  in  his  school. 

609.    Portrait    of    the    Infanta    Margarita    Teresa. 

This  has  the  look  of  a  portrait  perhaps  laid  in  by 
Velasquez  but  never  quite  completed.  It  has 
largeness  in  the  vision  as  well  as  in  the  drawing. 
Notice  this  in  the  skirt,  the  sleeves,  the  hair,  the 
bows.  They  are  well  hit  off.  The  ground  was 
left  unfinished  and  also  the  brown  object  in  the 
left  hand.  The  colour  scheme  and  the  relation- 
ship of  the  greens  to  the  whites  is  fine  just  as  it  is. 
The  whole  work  is  a  little  too  sure  and  free  for 
school  work  though  possibly  Carreno  may  have 
painted  it. 

60.    Venetian     School.      Christ    Bearing    the    Cross. 

The  catalogue  formerly  (1912)  gave  it  to  Correggio 
though  there  is  apparently  little  of  Correggio  about 
it.  The  light-and-shade  does  not  suggest  him, 
nor  the  colour,  nor  the  dark  hair  touched  up  in 
the  high  lights.  It  is  by  some  Giorgione  follower 
— Mr.  Berenson  says  Cariani. 

389.   Veronese,  Paolo  (Galiari).    Adoration  of  Magi. 

This  picture  was  once  divided  in  the  middle  and 


102  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

formed  the  outside  of  organ  shutters  in  S.  An- 
tonio at  Torcello.  Now  on  canvas.  It  has  not 
the  lift  or  bigness  of  Paolo  but  is  probably  a 
school  piece  or  family  work.  Notice  the  affected 
hands,  the  poor  heads  up  at  the  right,  the  crude 
sky,  and  the  oddly  drawn  heads  of  horses.  In- 
jured. 

382fi.  Esther  before  Ahasuerus.  It  is  a  new  pic- 
ture put  down  to  Paolo  and  hung  high.  It  prob- 
ably will  not  last  long  as  a  Paolo  for  it  is  a  work- 
shop affair  in  the  same  class  with  Nos.  380,  381. 

391.   Judith.     A   handsome   piece  of   colour   with 

richness  in  the  greens  and  reds.  The  drawing  is 
very  good  and  the  whole  picture  is  attractive.  It 
has  been  recently  attributed  to  Veronese,  but  it 
does  not  belong  to  him  though  it  suggests  him. 
It  is,  perhaps,  nearer  Paris  Bordone.  These  odd 
pictures  that  smack  of  many  painters  are  impossible 
to  place  with  certainty. 

404.   Annunciation.    Of  the  same  origin  as  No.  389. 

This  picture  formed  the  inner  side  of  the  organ 
shutters  in  S.  Antonio.  The  V  in  the  canvas  at 
the  top  with  the  indicated  arches  suggests  the  orig- 
inal form.  The  Madonna  is  a  little  affected,  the  an- 
gel is  too  white  in  high  lights  upon  robe  and  hair, 
the  cherubs  are  not  good,  and  the  robes,  while 
ornate,  are  decidedly  decadent.  The  sky  and  golden 
light  have  gone  salmon-coloured.  Injured  and 
much  repainted. 

399.    Madonna  and  Child  with  Saints.     The  white 

robe  at  the  right  and  the  yellow  one  at  the  left 
are  lovely  in  colour,  while  the  figures  are  graceful, 
even  majestic.  The  women  in  black  are  excellent. 


VIVARINI,  BARTOLOMMEO  103 

With  banners  and  columns  at  the  back  and  a  blue 
ground.  The  picture  is  small  and  possibly  only  a 
school  piece,  but  it  has  some  quality  about  it. 

402.  Adoration  of  Kings.  The  child  is  a  little  ab- 
surd in  pose,  the  horse  is  badly  foreshortened,  the 
black  king  is  not  well  drawn,  the  kneeling  king  with 
a  questionable  head  that  has  been  repainted  is  un- 
believable. It  is  a  school  piece.  [Now  (1913)  so 
attributed  on  the  frame.] 

396.  Christ  before  the  House  of  Jairus.  The  diag- 
onal grouping  of  the  figures  is  interesting  and  there 
is  some  ease  in  their  placing,  some  freedom  in  their 
drawing;  but  in  their  present  condition  they  are 
not  wonderful.  The  picture  has  been  much  re- 
painted. Look  at  the  heads  and  hands  or  the  col- 
umns and  the  sky.  The  picture  has  the  look  of  a 
Carletto  Caliari  but  is  possibly  of  Paolo's  designing. 

12.  Vivarini,  Alvise.  Madonna  and  Child.  Surely  a 
fine  Madonna.  Notice  the  little  angels  below  play- 
ing on  musical  instruments.  The  picture  is  hurt, 
unfortunately,  by  some  regilding  and  repainting. 
Another  work  similar  in  style  in  the  Redentore  at 
Venice. 

10.  Vivarini,  Bartolommeo.  St.  Ambrose  with 
Saints.  The  forms  are  rather  wooden  but  very 
honest  and  true.  The  draperies  wriggle  and  twist 
a  good  deal.  The  central  figure  is  the  most  uneasy 
in  drapery,  the  most  zigzagged,  of  them  all.  The 
small  donors  at  the  bottom  of  the  central  panel  are 
noteworthy.  Taken  as  a  whole,  it  is  fairly  good  in 
colour  though  now  much  injured.  All  the  panels 
(and  the  frame)  are  brightened  by  regilding  and 
restoration. 


104  THE  IMPERIAL  GALLERY 

634.   Weyden,  Roger  van  der.    Crucifixion.    It  has 

the  look  of  a  school  piece  or  copy  in  the  carefulness 
and  timidity  of  its  doing  and  in  the  brightness  of 
the  colours.  It  has  Roger's  types,  colours,  and 
tragic  passion  but  it  lacks  Roger's  quality  in  draw- 
ing and  colour.  The  hair  is  too  carefully  done 
while  the  foliage  of  the  trees  is  too  carelessly  done. 
Roger  had  many  copyists  and  assistants  and  one 
of  them  may  have  done  this  panel.  Its  clarity  and 
cleanliness  are  suspicious.  Formerly  attributed  to 
Schongauer  and  then  to  the  Master  of  Flemalle. 

632  1  Madonna  and  St.  Catherine.     Two  small  pan- 

633  /  els  done  in  the  style  of  No.  634  but  apparently  of 

a  better  quality  in  colour  and  with  firmer  draw- 
ing in  the  backgrounds.  No.  633  has  a  charm- 
ing little  distance  of  landscape  and  No.  632  is 
quite  lovely  in  the  types  of  the  Madonna  and  Child 
and  in  the  carefully  drawn  hands  and  feet.  These 
panels  may  be  school  work  but  are  very  good, 
nevertheless.  No.  632  was  formerly  thought  to  be 
by  Hubert  van  Eyck. 

393.    Zelotti,    Battista.     Anointing    of   David.    The 

colour  is  decorative  and  that  is  about  all  there  is 
to  the  picture.  The  brownish  curtain  at  the  back 
helps  little  and  the  sky  at  the  right  and  left  is 
crude  in  itself  and  by  contrast  with  the  brown. 
The  figures  are  fairly  drawn — no  more.  Appar- 
ently there  is  here  a  following  of  Paolo  Veronese. 
Formerly  attributed  to  Paolo  Farinato. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


1. 

4. 

5. 

7. 
10. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
16. 
17. 
19. 
20. 
21. 


26. 
27. 
29. 
32. 
34. 
39. 
41. 
46. 
47. 
51. 
59. 
60. 


Basaiti. 

Bellini,  Giovanni. 

Antonello  da  Saliba. 

Carpaccio. 

Vivarini,  Bartolommeo. 

Vivarini,  Alvise. 

Bellini,  Giovanni. 

Previtali. 

Giorgione. 

Sebastiano  del  Piombo. 

Cima. 

Catena. 

Giorgione. 


Perugino. 

Benozzo  Gozzoli. 
Perugino. 
Raphael. 
Perugino. 

Bartolommeo,  Fra. 
Sarto,  Andrea  del. 
Bartolommeo,  Fra. 
Franciabigio. 
Francia. 
Sodoma. 
Correggio. 
Venetian  School. 


611 

62] 

63. 

64. 

67. 

68 

68A 

69. 

81. 

82. 

82A. 

85. 

86. 

89. 

90. 


133 

134 

136 

137 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

145. 

150  \ 

154  J 


Parmigianino. 

Giorgione. 
Correggio. 
Parmigianino. 

Dossi. 


Predis,  Ambrogio  da. 

Mantegna. 

Luini. 

Solario. 

Costa. 

Luini. 

Bellini,  School  of. 

Tura. 

Cesare  da  Sesto. 

Florentine  School. 


Palma  Vecchio. 


Bonifazio  dei  Pitati. 
Titian. 


105 


106 


INDEX 


157.    Bonifazio  dei  Pitati. 

161 

163 

166 

Titian. 

167 

169 

170 

171 

Bonifazio  Veneziano. 

172 

174 

176 

177 

180 

Titian. 

181 

182 

186  j 

188.    Bonifazio  Veneziano. 

191] 

197  \  Titian. 

198  j 

205.   Cariani. 

207.   Palma  Vecchio. 

213 

Savoldo. 

215 

Lotto. 

216  ' 

>  Moroni. 

218.    Moretto  of  Brescia. 

219.    Romanino. 

220.   Lotto. 

221.    Licinio,  Bernardino. 

223.    Calisto  Piazza  da  Lodi. 

224.    Tintoretto,  Jacopo. 

226.    Bonifazio  Veneziano. 

231    \-_j_ 

23U  / 


234 

235 

236 

239 

239A 

241 

243A. 

244) 

245  j 

248. 

249 

250 

254 

255 

256 

257 

261. 

272. 

382B. 

385. 

389. 

390. 

391. 

393. 

395. 

396. 

397. 

399] 

402 

404] 

409. 

417. 

455 

458 

463 

465 

466 


Tintoretto,  Jacopo. 

Tintoretto,  Domenico. 
Tintoretto,  Jacopo. 
Bordone. 

Tintoretto,  Jacopo. 


Schiavone. 
Greco,  II. 
Veronese,  Paolo. 
Farinato. 
Veronese,  Paolo. 
Farinato. 
Veronese,  Paolo. 
Zelotti. 
Badile. 

Veronese,  Paolo. 
Badile. 

Veronese,  Paolo. 

Farinato. 
Tintoretto,  Jacopo. 

Belotto. 


INDEX 


107 


599.   Panto  j  a  de  la  Cruz. 

665] 

602.    Coello,  Sanchez. 

666  >  Patinir. 

603.   Mazo. 

667  j 

605.    Velasquez. 

g™  1  Bles. 

606.    Carreno  de  Miranda. 

676.    Master  of  Seven   Sor- 

607 

rows. 

609     TT  , 
fil  1     Velasquez. 

682] 
683  >  Cleve,  Juste  van. 

612 

684  J 

614.    Murillo. 

693.    Metsys,  Jan. 

615 

696.    Hemessen. 

~17     Velasquez. 

^jAertsen. 

618 

706    ] 

620.    Spanish  School. 

707    >  Beuckelaer. 

621  ) 

707AJ 

622  1  Velasquez. 

708 

624  1 

709 

fi2c  f  Eyck,  Jan  van. 

710 

\J6O  J 

711 

627A  }  David'  Gerard' 

712 
713  1  Brueghel     the 

Elder, 

r,^  \  Goes,  Van  der. 

714  [      Peter. 

715 

632] 

716 

633  \  Weyden,  Van  der. 

717 

634  J 

719 

635.    Memling. 

720 

642  A.  Cleve,  Juste  van. 

738  1  ValckenD°rcn- 

fi44  1 
jff:  >  Geertgen  tot  St.  Jans. 

754  1  -, 
tjgg'i  Gossart. 

646.    Cornelisz   van   Oostsa- 

764.    Master  of  Half 

Figure. 

nen. 

765 

si*-? 

766  °rley>Van- 

657.    Bles. 

771    Coxie- 

108 


INDEX 


>  Moro. 


>  Rubens. 


914.   Brueghel    the    Elder, 
Jan. 

984.   Brueghel    the   Elder, 
Peter. 


1028 

1032 

1033 

1034 

1035 

1036 

1038 

1039 

1040 

1042 

1043 

1046 

1048 

1050 

1051 

1052 

1053 

1087. 

1135. 

1155. 

1245. 

1261. 

1268' 

1269 

1270 

1271 

1272 

1273 

1274 

1276 , 

1297. 

1299A. 

13041 

1305  / 

1305A. 

1313. 

1337. 


Dyck,  Anthony  van. 


Jordaens. 

Brouwer. 

Teniers  the  Younger. 

Bramer. 

Neer,  Van  der. 


Rembrandt. 


Hals,  Frans. 
Hooch,  Pieter  de. 

Steen. 

Palamedes. 
Goyen,  Jan  van. 
Ruisdael. 


INDEX 


109 


1338.  Cappelle. 
1366.  Terborch. 
1370A.Metsu. 

1405.  Burgkmair. 

1406.  Amberger. 


DQrer. 


1423 
1424 


\  Baldung. 


Cranach  the  Elder. 


1427.   Maler  zu  Schwaz. 

14281 

1429  J 

1431.  Beck. 

1432.  Beham. 


1 1  Strigel. 


!  \  Schauffelein. 

1438  } 

1438A  \  Kulmbach. 

1438B  j 

1439.  Pencz. 


1442 ' 

1443 

1444 

1445 

1446 

1447 

1448 

1452' 

1453 

1455 

1458 

1459 

1460 

1462 

1473.  Maler  zu  Schwaz. 

1479  1 

1480 

1481 

1482 

1483 

1484 

1485 

1489.  Holbein,  School  of. 

1490.  Schongauer. 


Holbein  the  Younger. 


MUSEUM  OF  FINE  ARTS, 
BUDAPEST 


NOTE  ON  THE  BUDAPEST  MUSEUM 

BUDAPEST  is  one  of  the  most  progressive  and  en- 
lightened cities  of  Europe,  and  in  perfect  keeping  with 
its  enlightened  spirit  it  has  established  a  notable  and 
growing  collection  of  pictures,  both  ancient  and  modern. 
The  pictures  have  been  brought  together  in  recent 
years,  and  the  famous  examples  inherited  by  such 
older  galleries  as  the  Louvre  and  the  National  Gallery, 
London,  are  not  to  be  expected;  yet  among  the  old 
masters  there  are  some  remarkable  pictures  in  this 
gallery.  The  superb  portrait  by  Vermeer  of  Delft 
is  almost  sufficient  in  itself  to  make  a  collection  of 
pictures  famous.  Besides  this  there  is  a  very  good 
Hals  portrait  and  an  excellent  bust  portrait  put  down 
to  Murillo  but  by  a  very  much  stronger  painter  than 
he — by  the  painter  of  the  Christ  Bound  to  the  Col- 
umn in  the  National  Gallery,  London.  There  is  an 
unusual  representation  of  Spanish  pictures  here  and 
a  large  number  of  Flemish,  Dutch,  and  German  mas- 
ters, even  some  examples  of  old  Hungarian  art.  But 
the  showing  of  Italian  art  is  the  most  conspicuous, 
the  most  important,  perhaps.  There  are  two  rooms 
filled  with  Primitives,  some  of  them  exquisite  in  their 
gilded  grounds  and  mellow  colours.  There  are  good 
pictures  by  Costa,  Boltraffio,  Previtali,  Verrocchio's 
113 


114      NOTE  ON  THE  BUDAPEST  MUSEUM 

School,  Gentile  Bellini.  The  Correggio  is  a  little  senti- 
mental, and  the  Raphael  is  not  one  of  his  best,  but  there 
is  a  superb  portrait  put  down  to  Giorgione,  another  fine 
one  given  to  Lotto,  and  still  a  third  by  Romanino  that 
is  not  to  be  despised.  Nearly  a  thousand  pictures  by 
the  old  masters  are  listed  in  the  catalogue.  They 
should  be  studied. 

The  new  building  is  large,  well  lighted,  and  well 
adapted  to  museum  purposes.  Again,  the  pictures  are 
well  hung  and  one  is  allowed  to  enjoy  them  in  peace. 
The  officious  attendant  who  bores  you  with  his  talk 
and  his  insistence  upon  your  seeing  what  he  consid- 
ers wonderful  is  absent.  Courtesy  and  propriety  reign 
throughout  the  building.  The  catalogue  (in  French, 
with  illustrations)  is  concise,  correct,  careful  without 
being  pedantic.  The  different  views  of  experts  about 
the  various  pictures  are  given  without  comment.  They 
are  allowed  to  confirm  or  confute  each  other — the  di- 
rector of  the  gallery  retaining  the  privilege  of  his  own 
opinion  and  his  own  attribution.  This  is  quite  as  it 
should  be. 

During  the  year  1913  an  important  collection  of  pic- 
tures known  as  the  Palffy  Collection  (left  to  the  mu- 
seum by  Count  Palffy)  was  hung  in  a  separate  part  of 
the  building,  with  a  special  catalogue  and  numbering. 
Presumably  it  will  eventually  be  rearranged,  recata- 
logued,  and  incorporated  in  the  main  museum  collec- 
tions. Until  that  time  it  seems  unwise  to  publish  any 
notes  about  it.  Reference  to  its  pictures  by  numbers 


NOTE  ON  THE  BUDAPEST  MUSEUM       115 

would  merely  lead  to  confusion  with  the  main-gallery 
numbers,  and  reference  by  place  or  name  would  again 
be  unsatisfactory  since  both  are  liable  to  speedy  change. 
The  student,  however,  should  not  miss  the  opportunity 
to  see  these  pictures.  There  are  some  excellent  can- 
vases among  them  of  which  mention  will  be  made 
hereafter. 


THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM, 
BUDAPEST 

673.  Aertsen,  Pieter.  Market  Scene.  Done  with 
truth  and  force,  and  probably  by  Aertsen,  as  at- 
tributed. Not,  perhaps,  his  most  commanding  per- 
formance, but,  even  so,  one  must  here  respect  his 
large  realism,  his  true  if  coarse  drawing,  his  strong, 
somewhat  brutal  colour.  What  a  head  that  of  the 
kneeling  woman! 

678.  Aldegrever,  Heinrich  (?).  Lot  and  His  Daugh- 
ters. It  is  good  in  colour  whoever  may  have 
painted  it.  It  was  possibly  worked  up  from  an 
Aldegrever  engraving  by  a  later  man,  as  the  cata- 
logue suggests. 

29.  Avanzi,  Jacopo.  Madonna  and  Child.  It  is  dec- 
orative in  its  gold  and  colour.  The  folds  of  drap- 
ery put  in  with  gilded  high  lights,  the  red  angel 
wings  at  the  sides,  the  crown  and  golden  halo  are 
all  effective.  The  attribution  may  be  questioned. 
Repainted  but  still  handsome. 

70.  Bacchiacca,  Francesco  Ubertini.  Preaching  of 
St.  John  Baptist.  With  bunches  of  figures  rather 
than  groups  and  with  bad  drawing  in  the  hands 
and  feet.  But  it  has  a  good  landscape  and  a  bright 
colour  effect.  One  can  expect  little  more  from 
Bacchiacca. 

117 


118  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

729A.  Baldung,  Hans.  Madonna.  The  wing  of  a 
triptych  the  other  parts  of  which  are  now  lost  or 
at  least  unknown.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  sup- 
pressed emotion  in  the  figure  and  some  rather  effec- 
tive though  sharp  drawing.  Bleached  in  the  whites. 

715  \ Adam  and  Eve.     Two  panels  that  show  ex- 

716  /  pressive  outline  drawing  but  are  exaggerated  in 

size,  sentiment,  pose,  and  colour.  The  simpler 
work  of  Cranach  seeins  more  satisfying  than  this, 
though  Baldung  is  a  draughtsman  of  force. 
435.  Balen,  Jan  van.  Rest  in  Egypt.  The  picture  is 
Rubensesque  in  every  way — in  fact,  a  clever  though 
coarse  following  of  Rubens.  It  falls  short  in  sure- 
ness  of  touch,  the  surfaces  are  prettier,  and  of 
course  there  is  no  originality  about  it,  for  the 
Rubens  types,  colours,  poses,  themes  are  taken 
almost  verbatim.  But  the  work  by  itself  consid- 
ered is  fairly  well  done.  It  was,  perhaps,  done  by 
Jan  van  Balen's  father,  Hendrik  the  Elder,  who  was 
a  more  pronounced  Rubens  follower  than  his  son. 

128*   Bartolommeo  Veneto.     Portrait  of  a  Man.    A 

dusky  and  rather  hard  portrait  that  has  suffered 
considerably.  There  are  still  some  firmness  in  the 
drawing  and  richness  in  the  colour.  Notice  the 
fine  head-gear. 

109.  Basaiti,  Marco.  St.  Jerome.  The  landscape, 
especially  in  the  sky,  distant  mountains,  and  water, 
is  crude.  The  trees  at  right  are  bungled  or  re- 
painted and  the  saint  is  hardly  happy  in  drawing. 
It  is  a  poor  workshop  piece.  Notice  how  much 
better  is  No.  104,  put  down  to  the  same  painter. 
But  the  same  hand  did  not  do  them.  The  land- 
scapes by  themselves  considered  contradict  each 
other. 


BEUCKELAER,  JOACHIM  119 

104.    St.  Catherine  of  Alexander.    A  very  fine  figure 

in  its  richness  of  colour  and  depth  of  shadow.  The 
robe  is  especially  attractive.  The  face  is  somewhat 
prettified,  the  hand  with  the  book  is  awkward,  and 
the  figure  stands  badly.  The  landscape  is  dark  but 
makes  a  perfect  setting  for  the  figure.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  attribution  though  the  picture 
seems  different  from  No.  109.  Compare  them. 

147.  Bassano,  Jacopo.  St.  Jerome.  The  head  is 
rather  better  than  the  beard.  With  some  fair  mod- 
elling in  the  eyes,  brows,  nose,  and  cheek-bones. 
The  colour  is  very  good. 

117.  Bellini,  Gentile.  Portrait  of  Catherine  Cornaro. 
*  An  excellent  portrait  and  done  in  the  same  vein  or 
spirit  as  Gentile's  portrait  of  the  same  sitter  in  the 
Miracle  of  the  Cross  (No.  568)  in  the  Venice 
Academy.  The  drawing  is  positive  in  the  outline, 
the  figure  well  suggested,  the  colour  excellent,  the 
dress  and  jewels  ornate  in  effect.  The  character- 
isation is,  however,  the  best  part  of  it.  Somewhat 
rubbed  but  still  magnificent. 

111.  Bellini,  School  of  Giovanni.  Portrait  of  the 
Doge  Barberigo.  It  is  a  mediocre  portrait,  possi- 
bly painted  by  Basaiti  as  suggested  in  both  the 
sitter  and  the  landscape  seen  through  the  window. 

255  1  BelottO,   Bernardo.      The  Piazza  and  the  Arno, 

256  J  Florence.     Two  views  of  Florence  extremely  well 

done  and  fine  in  colour.  They  are  of  much  in- 
terest historically  for  the  look  of  the  old  Piazza 
and  the  Arno  in  Belotto's  day. 

N.  N.  Beuckelaer,  Joachim.  Peasant  with  Vegetables. 
It  is  not  the  best  of  Beuckelaers.  The  drawing 
is  not  very  secure  nor  the  handling  too  certain. 
Notice  the  drawing  of  the  man's  head. 


120  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

63.  Bicci  di  Lorenzo,  Neri  di.  Madonna  and 
Child.  In  the  style  of  this  painter,  with  his  type 
of  the  Madonna,  his  drawing  and  colouring.  The 
gold  work  is  rich.  What  beautiful  haloes!  The 
flesh  has  been  hurt  by  retouching. 

180A.    Bissolo,  Pier  Francesco.     St.   George  (?).    A 

smooth-faced,  very  clean,  and  boneless  St.  George 
that  might  have  been  done  by  Bissolo  or  even 
Catena,  but  possibly  it  is  by  neither.  It  has  some 
sweetness  but  very  little  strength.  It  is  the  kind 
of  art  that  people  should  pass  by  in  discreet  silence, 
though  the  landscape  at  the  right  might  be  worth 
pausing  over. 

684.   Bles,    Herri   met   de.    Landscape.    It  has   the 

Patinir  defect  of  being  out  of  key — the  brown  fore- 
ground not  belonging  to  the  blue  background.  The 
mountains  are  fantastic.  The  owl  sign  is  on  the 
tree  limb  at  left,  but  that  proves  nothing.  See  the 
notes  on  Bles  and  Bosch  in  the  Vienna  Gallery. 

74.  Boccato  da  Camerino,  Giovanni.  Madonna 
and  Saints.  A  large  altar-piece  with  a  squared 
group  of  figures,  making  no  pretence  to  subtlety  of 
composition  but  very  frank  and  honest  in  senti- 
ment and  agreeable  in  colour.  The  drapery  of  the 
Madonna  is  somewhat  uneasy.  Notice  the  lovely 
angels  at  the  back  and  the  pathetic,  music-making 
putti  at  the  foot  of  the  throne.  The  drawing  of  the 
drapery  of  the  putti  is  amusing.  With  rich  robes. 
Attribution  questionable. 

549.  Bol,  Ferdinand.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  pulpy 
picture  with  no  bone  or  muscle  about  the  sitter. 
One  feels  the  bigness  of  the  head  and  also  its  soft- 
ness. Yellowed  perhaps  by  varnish. 


BOSCH,  JEROME  121 

115.  Bol traffic,  Giovanni  Antonio.  Madonna  and 
*  Child.  The  figures  fill  the  panel  very  well,  are 
quite  right  in  light-and-shade  and  effective  as  col- 
our. They  seem  too  well  drawn  for  Boltraffio  and 
not  well  enough  drawn  (especially  in  the  hands) 
for  Leonardo.  The  fingers  of  the  Child  and  their 
joining  to  the  hand  are  not  rightly  done  and  the 
arms  have  undue  length.  The  drapery  is  well 
handled  and  there  is  grace  in  the  composition  as 
in  the  contours,  but  it  is  not  exactly  Leonardo's 
grace.  A  handsome  group  and  not  far  removed 
from  Leonardo,  as  Dr.  Bode  suggests,  but  far  enough 
to  put  it  down  as  the  work  of  some  Leonardo  imi- 
tator. The  same  hand  did  the  Madonna  Litta  at 
St.  Petersburg  (No.  13A).  The  hand  was  probably 
that  of  Bernardino  de'  Conti.  A  handsome  work. 
Notice  the  fine  bowl  on  the  table. 

112.   Borgognone,  Ambrogio   Fossano.    Deposition. 

The  Borgognone  types  are  here  somewhat  loosely 
given  and  his  gold  work  in  the  hair  and  crowns 
seems  carelessly  put  in.  The  picture  has  the  look 
of  a  Borgognone  workshop  piece.  The  colour  is 
rich.  The  landscape  with  its  sunlight  effect  on 
the  houses  is,  perhaps,  the  best  part  of  the  picture, 
though  the  figure  of  John  at  the  left  is  very  good. 

N.  N.  Bosch,  Jerome.  Adoration  of  Magi.  On  an 
*  easel  and  evidently  a  new  acquisition.  A  subject 
that  Bosch  did  a  number  of  times,  notably  at 
Madrid  (No.  2048).  The  black  king  here  in  a 
white  robe  is  similar  to  the  one  at  Madrid  but 
otherwise  the  picture  is  varied.  There  is  excellent 
colour  in  the  robes  and  brocades  with  much  rich- 
ness in  the  gold  work.  The  handling  is  easy  but 
not  so  certain  as  usual  with  Bosch.  Both  the 


122  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

handling  and  the  drawing  are  a  little  careless.  An 
odd  composition,  its  very  oddity,  perhaps,  helping 
out  its  picturesqueness.  Notice  the  rich  note  in 
the  robe  of  the  kneeling  king. 

593.  Brouwer,  Adriaen.  The  Smokers.  It  is  a  poor 
panel  with  little  of  Brouwer's  certainty  of  touch 
in  it. 

651.   Brueghel  the  Elder,  Peter  (Peasant).    An  Old 

Couple.  With  some  good  drawing  but  an  unnec- 
essary emphasis  of  wrinkles.  It  has  little  sugges- 
tion of  any  of  the  Brueghels  about  it. 

653.  Brueghel  the  Younger,  Peter  (Hell).  Cruci- 
fixion.  There  are  some  good  grouping,  some  free 
painting,  and  some  fine  colour  in  the  picture. 

230.  Canaletto,  Giovanni  Antonio.  Piazza  of  the 
*  Clock-Tower  (Venice).  A  large  Canaletto  sur- 
rounded by  a  framework  of  small  Guardis.  It  is 
fine  in  colour,  light,  and  air.  Notice  how  charm- 
ingly the  little  figures  are  put  in  or  how  well  the 
balconies,  curtains,  and  windows  at  the  right  are 
painted.  It  is  Canaletto  at  his  best — in  fact,  it  is 
so  good  that  one  wonders  if  it  can  be  a  Canaletto. 

320.  Cano,  AlonZO.      Christ  and  the  Magdalen.      It  is 

rather  good  in  colour  but  lacks  in  dignity  and  re- 
serve. The  attitudes  are  by  no  means  easy  or 
pleasing.  The  Magdalen's  robe  is  well  done  but  her 
hands  are  awkward  and  her  face  is  ill  drawn.  The 
Christ  turns  badly  and  steps  out  stiffly. 

321.    Christ  at  Gethsemane.     The  picture  is  easily 

painted  and  may  be  genuine  enough,  but  every 
dark,  Spanish-looking  picture  containing  a  blue  or 
pink  winged  angel  is  not  necessarily  by  Cano. 


COQUES,  GONZALES       '  123 

283.    Carducho,  Vincenzo.    Vision  of  St.  Francis.     An 

odd  picture  in  its  composition  and  its  colour,  but 
well  drawn  and  effective  in  sentiment.  The  St. 
Francis  is  very  well  done,  especially  in  the  handling 
of  the  robe.  The  Madonna,  however,  is  a  little 
heavy  of  figure.  The  colour  is  a  scheme  of  blues 
and  greens  and  out  of  the  ordinary,  at  least. 

328B.  Carreno  de  Miranda,  Juan.  Portrait  of  a 
Young  Man.  It  is  an  inky  portrait,  probably  of 
Charles  II — the  same  type  as  No.  642  at  Madrid 
and  No.  407  at  Berlin,  both  by  Carreno.  This 
one  is  rightly  painted  but  is  black  enough  to  have 
been  done  by  Ribera  or  some  one  of  his  school. 

97.  Catena,  Vincenzo.  Holy  Family.  A  crude  work 
with  some  indications  of  its  being  a  poor  school 
piece  or  even  a  copy.  Look  at  the  head  and  hair 
of  the  saint  at  the  right,  the  wooden  Child,  the  raw 
landscape,  the  sharp  blue  of  the  sky  and  robe.  It 
is  cheap  execution  that  we  see  here,  but,  then,  Ca- 
tena frequently  painted  in  just  this  cheap  manner. 

102.    Madonna,  Saints,  and  Donor.     It  is  a  better 

picture  than  No.  97  but  by  no  means  a  work  that 
any  one  can  regard  as  masterful.  The  donor  is  the 
best  piece  of  drawing  in  it. 

697A.  Cleve,  Juste  van  der  Beke  van  (Master  of  the 
Death  of  the  Virgin).  Portrait  of  a  Woman. 

There  is  some  good  drawing  about  it  of  .a  hard, 
linear  kind.  Notice  the  squareness  of  the  chin. 
The  white  head-dress  is  effective.  Attribution 
questionable. 

642.    Coques,  Gonzales.     Family  of  Jacques  van  Eyck. 

A  group  of  smooth,  well-dressed  people  belonging, 
possibly,  to  what  are  called  "  the  better  classes" 


124  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

but  not  furnishing  nearly  as  good  material  for  pic- 
torial art  as  Brouwer's  boors  or  Rembrandt's  Jews. 
But  that  may  be  because  Coques  was  not  Brouwer 
or  Rembrandt.  The  picture  is  cleverly  done,  how- 
ever, with  some  good  portraiture  in  the  heads. 

121.  Correggio,  Antonio  Allegri  da.  Madonna  and 
Child.  A  Madonna  of  the  pretty  type,  with  more 
or  less  of  sweet  sentiment  about  her.  Such  pictures 
as  this  give  one  small  idea  of  Correggio  as  he  ap- 
pears at  Parma.  However,  there  is  mastery  in  the 
grouping  here  and  some  charm  in  the  diagonal 
flow  of  line  as  suggested  in  the  Child  and  empha- 
sised in  the  drapery.  The  hands  of  the  Madonna 
are  just  as  pretty  as  her  face.  The  children  are 
better,  more  childlike  and  less  affected.  The  col- 
our and  the  light  are  good.  Other  versions  of  the 
same  picture  in  the  Hermitage  and  elsewhere. 

99 1  Cossa,  Francesco  del.  Playing  Angels.  Two 
100  J  attractive  figures  by  some  one  close  to  the  author 
of  the  single  figure  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (No.  115A), 
there  ascribed  to  Cossa.  They  are  fine  in  colour, 
in  light-and-shade,  and  in  relation  to  their  back- 
grounds. They  have  the  foreshortening  effect  from 
the  feet  backward  and  downward  peculiar  to  the 
Berlin  picture  and  also  to  be  noted  in  the  Man- 
tegna  fresco  of  St.  James  on  the  Way  to  Prison  in 
the  Eremitani  at  Padua.  What  wonderful  skies 
and  landscapes!  The  figures  are  tall  and  rather 
ungainly  in  their  attitudes.  Besides,  the  one  with 
the  harp  has  been  injured  in  the  hands  and  face. 
But  they  are  lovely  pieces  of  colour.  Notice  the 
dull,  golden  robe  of  the  angel  at  the  right. 

124.    Costa,   Lorenzo.     Venus.    A  graceful  figure  in 
*      spite  of  its  thin  arms,  awkward  legs,  and  wooden 


CREMONA,  SCHOOL  OF  125 

torso.  It  should  be  studied  in  connection  with  the 
early  Venus  of  Lorenzo  di  Credi  in  the  Uffizi. 
They  are  epitomes  and  embodiments  not  only  of 
the  spirit  but  the  technique  of  the  early  Renais- 
sance. Costa  is  less  harsh  in  his  characterisation 
than  Credi,  but  he  is  hotter  in  colour,  less  charming 
in  hue  and  surface,  less  cunning  with  his  handling 
of  the  white  cloth.  The  white  is  here  a  little  high 
in  key.  The  outline  of  the  left  leg  was  changed 
probably  by  the  painter  himself.  The  hands  have 
been  hurt  as  well  as  other  portions  of  the  figure. 

728.  Granach  the  Elder,  Lucas.  Marriage  of  St. 
*  Catherine.  The  faces  are  porcelain-like  and  the 
robes  not  very  different,  but  there  is  good  senti- 
ment apparent,  delicate  workmanship  everywhere, 
and  a  fine  scheme  of  high  colour.  What  colour  it 
is!  The  black  curtain  (?)  at  the  back  does  not  help 
the  picture  any,  for  it  merely  shuts  out  some  of  the 
altogether  delightful  landscape.  What  colour  in 
the  sky,  the  pine,  the  mountain  profile  I 

719.   The  Old  Lover.     It  is  well  drawn  and  rather 

good  in  colour  but  is  not  a  remarkable  Cranach. 
In  fact,  one  may  doubt  the  Elder  Cranach's  hand 
in  it  at  all.  As  usual  the  founder  of  the  school 
has  all  the  output  of  the  school  attributed  to  him. 
One  might  think  Cranach  never  had  sons  and  pupils 
who  did  just  this  kind  of  picture. 

158.  Cremona,  School  of.  A  Saint.  It  is  part  of  a 
picture  cut  away  and  framed  up.  It  might  have 
been  painted  by  the  painter  of  No.  180A  or  102 
(the  centre  figure) — that  is,  Catena.  It  has  some 
colour  and  is  much  better  work  than  the  two  other 
pictures  just  cited. 


126  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

98.    Crivelli,    Carlo.     Madonna   and   Child.     Not    a 

*  very  brilliant  Crivelli,  but  lovely  in  tone  and  rich 
in  robe  and  architecture.  The  gold  work  is  im- 
pressive and  the  little  Child  very  naive  in  type.  It 
lacks  Crivelli's  splendour  of  effect,  his  floridity  of 
colour,  but  is  highly  decorative  none  the  less. 
What  a  fine  robe,  crown,  fruit,  background!  It  is 
all  excellent  work  and  in  excellent  condition. 

587.  Cuyp,  Albert.  Cattle  in  Water.  The  cattle  are 
good,  but  the  sky  and  clouds  are  ill  drawn  and 
ineffective. 

696.  David,  Gerard.  Nativity.  With  every  indica- 
tion of  being  by  David — that  is,  David  as  we  now 
know  him  in  European  galleries.  The  painter  is 
still  an  uncertainty,  but  the  Joseph  and  Madonna 
here  are  repeated  in  other  pictures  and  tend  to 
identify  the  personality  and  the  brush  of  some  one 
man  whom  we  now  call  David.  A  very  fine  group 
with  naive  charm  of  sentiment  and  excellent  col- 
our. The  Madonna  is  lovely.  Notice  the  little 
angels  in  white,  also  the  shed,  the  shepherds  on 
the  hill,  the  fine  town,  and  the  landscape  effect. 
The  central  spot  of  red  in  the  robe  of  Joseph  keeps 
drawing  the  eye  by  its  rich  hue.  In  a  good  frame. 

485.  Decker,  Cornells  Gerritz.  The  Goose  Inn.  It 
is  almost  as  good  as  the  Ruisdaels  and  Hobbemas 
that  outcry  it.  The  light  and  colour  are  excellent. 

180D.  Dossi,  DOSSO.  Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints.  A 
rich  piece  of  colour  of  a  kind  suggestive  of  Dossi 
without  having,  perhaps,  his  colour  depth.  What 
an  odd  Madonna  with  her  Oriental  head-dress! 
Notice  also  the  angel  with  red  wings.  A  fine  bit. 

161.  - Portrait  of  Giorgione  (?).  A  dark,  painter- 
like  face,  with  some  good  drawing  in  the  eyes,  nose, 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  127 

and  brows.  The  hair  has  been  tampered  with. 
Whether  the  portrait  is  by  Giorgione,  or  of  him, 
will  not  be  settled  by  anything  that  could  be  said 
here  or  is  likely  to  be  said  elsewhere.  As  to  its 
being  a  Dosso,  one  may  file  an  exception.  It  has 
good  quality. 

43.  Duccio  di  Buoninsegna.  Preaching  of  John  the 
Baptist.  The  picture  is  by  some  one  in  Duccio's 
School  and  standing  close  to  the  master.  There 
are  good  grouping  of  figures,  drawing  of  drapery, 
and  richness  of  colour.  The  type  of  Christ  is 
Duccio's  only  a  little  coarsened.  Also  the  feet  and 
hands  are  his. 

502.  Duck,  Jacob.  The  Guard.  The  figures  are  well 
set  in  the  space,  with  light  and  air  correctly  ren- 
dered and  a  very  good  effect  of  tone. 

699.  Diirer,  Albrecht,  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  good 
*  piece  of  drawing  in  the  head  and  face,  with  a  very 
marked  personality  given  to  the  sitter.  The  face 
has  been  rubbed  and  stained  until  some  of  the  mod- 
elling is  now  distorted,  but  it  is  still  a  fine  head. 
Notice  the  minute  work  in  the  fur  and  cap.  Diirer 
was  a  realist  of  small  things,  he  was  also  a  great 
artist;  but  the  cause  of  his  greatness  was  not  his 
realism  of  the  little.  Possibly  a  likeness  of  Durer's 
brother,  as  the  catalogue  suggests. 

419.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  The  Trinity.  A  picture 
that  is  to  be  accepted  with  something  more  than  a 
grain  of  salt.  It  may  be  by  Van  Dyck  or  of  his 
school,  for  he  had  a  score  of  pupils,  helpers,  and 
imitators  whose  works  are  now  lumped  under  his 
name;  but  the  picture  has  a  Spanish  look  about 
it.  The  types  of  Christ,  of  the  Father,  of  the 
cherubs  below  are  more  than  half  Spanish.  The 


128  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

sky  and  the  dove  bear  out  the  Spanish  feeling. 
The  slight  Van  Dyck  look  of  it  may  be  a  Spanish 
following  of  him.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  well 
drawn. 

416.   Portrait  of  a  Couple.     It  is  evidently  an  early 

Van  Dyck  that  has  been  cleaned  to  death  so  that 
the  under-basing  now  shows  through  in  the  hands 
and  faces,  and  the  high  lights  appear  in  unrelieved 
gouts  of  paint — the  finer  surface  touches  with  their 
subtle  modellings  having  disappeared.  As  a  result 
we  have  harsh  if  forceful  modelling,  rather  savage 
colour,  and  an  unpleasant  surface.  Originally,  it 
must  have  been  a  strong  work,  but  now  one  need 
only  look  at  the  hands — the  left  hand  of  the  man 
particularly — for  evidence  of  bad  treatment. 

365.   Elias  (Pickenoy)  Nicolaes.    Portrait  of  a  Man. 

The  portrait  is  posed  in  an  attitude  that  rather 
suggests  the  so-called  Admiral  Borro  at  the  Berlin 
Gallery,  questionably  ascribed  to  Velasquez.  It 
suggests  again  how  essentially  Netherlandish  the 
Borro  portrait  is  and  how  far  removed  it  is  from 
Spanish  origin.  See  the  comment  on  the  Borro  in 
the  Berlin  notes. 

372.    Portrait  of  a  Woman.     A  sturdy,  strong  type, 

with  firmly  drawn  face  and  hands.  It  is  a  little 
hard  and  smooth  but  truthful  and  honest. 

682.    Engelbrechtsen,  Cornells.    Portrait  of  a  Couple. 

The  work  is  very  well  done  and  the  colour  is  excel- 
lent. The  handling  is  easy  and  effective — that  is 
certain.  Notice  the  blue  falcon  for  fine  colour. 

331.  Fabritius,  Bernaert.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  There 
is  a  suggestion  of  the  painter's  master,  Rembrandt, 
in  this  portrait,  though  it  is  smoother  and  weaker 


FRANCIA,  FRANCESCO  129 

than  Rembrandt.  But  it  is  a  fairly  good  portrait. 
The  artistic  personality  of  Fabritius  needs  rehabili- 
tation. His  pictures  have  been  for  many  years 
listed  as  Rembrandts  and  are  still  doing  yeoman 
service  as  such  in  many  of  the  galleries  of  Europe. 

204.  Feti,  Domenico.  Sleeping  Girl.  The  handling 
of  the  brush  is  decidedly  dexterous,  and  the  col- 
our scheme  is  engaging.  The  painters  in  the  period 
of  the  Decadence  were  sometimes  remarkable  for 
their  retention  of  the  tradition  of  good  craftsman- 
ship even  though  good  thought  and  feeling  had  left 
them. 

410A.  Flinck,  Covert.  Manoah's  Sacrifice.  A  Rem- 
*  brandtesque  canvas  that  lies  between  Eeckhout 
and  Flinck.  These  pictures  of  angels  on  grey  or 
dark  grounds  are  so  confused  in  their  assignments 
in  European  galleries  that  it  seems  impossible  to 
straighten  them  out.  The  painter  of  this  picture 
helped  Rembrandt  in  his  series  of  the  Passion  (Nos. 
326-331)  at  Munich.  It  is  a  very  good  picture, 
with  the  figures  well  set  in  the  scene  and  with  air 
and  light.  The  drawing  is  clumsy  and  less  sure 
than  with  Rembrandt  or  even  Flinck.  It  is  more 
like  the  drawing  of  Eeckhout. 

72.  Francia,  Francesco.  Madonna,  Child,  and  Two 
Angels.  It  is  glassy  in  the  surface,  cool  in  colour, 
sweet  in  sentiment,  and  not  very  good  in  drawing. 
Notice  how  badly  the  Madonna's  head  is  placed 
upon  her  shoulders.  The  picture  belongs  to  the 
school  or  workshop  of  Francia. 

75.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  John.     A  fine  picture, 

with  good  colour  and  a  clear  landscape.  The  Ma- 
donna is  bright  and  wistful-looking.  There  are  sug- 


130  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

gestions  of  Costa  in  both  the  Madonna  and  Child, 
but  it  is  probably  by  Francia.  A  very  handsome 
little  panel. 

729G.  French  School.  Two  Ecclesiastics.  Very  good 
colour  in  the  robes  with  some  good  gold  work. 

407.  Gelder,  Aert  de.  Esther  and  Mordecai.  An  ex- 
cellent Gelder,  better  drawn  and  composed  than 
usual,  and  with  fine  colour.  The  handling  is  facile 
and  rather  more  sure  than  in  other  examples  of 
this  painter  though  of  the  same  general  character. 
One  of  the  best  Gelders  in  gallery  possession.  The 
colour  is  a  little  hot.  What  richness  in  the  woman's 
costume!  This  is  the  hand  that  did  the  Prodigal 
Son,  assigned  to  Rembrandt  at  the  Hermitage. 
58.  Ghirlandajo,  Ridolfo.  Nativity.  The  colour  is 
brilliant  but  not  too  well  held  together,  nor  is  the 
grouping  in  any  way  remarkable.  It  is  a  formal 
and  perfunctory  affair  even  in  the  sentiment  of  it. 
Ridolfo  did  better  work  than  this  though  he  was 
never  a  great  painter.  The  landscape  is  good,  and 
the  angels  in  the  sky  make  a  pretty  trio. 

108.  Gianpietrino  (Giovanni  Pietro  Ricci).  Ma- 
donna and  Saints.  A  Leonardesque  panel  with 
brownish  shadows  and  grey  faces.  The  sentiment 
is  a  little  sweeter  than  a  Luini  and  the  drawing 
somewhat  more  questionable.  It  is  too  frail  for 
love  or  admiration.  Cleaned  and  repainted  with 
harmful  results. 

140.  Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli).  Portrait  of  a 
**  Man.  A  picture  about  which  there  is  much  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  It  has  a  Giorgionesque  look,  as 
almost  every  one  will  admit,  but  it  rather  refuses  to 
be  reconciled  with  some  other  supposed  Giorgiones 
in  the  European  galleries,  for  instance,  the  early  por- 


GIORGIONE  131 

trait  at  Berlin  (No.  12A).  The  Budapest  picture  is 
more  mature  in  every  way — in  light,  shadow,  colour, 
the  hand,  the  face,  the  quilted  coat.  In  feeling  they 
are  not  far  removed  from  one  another,  but  neither 
of  them  agrees  closely  with  the  Knight  of  Malta 
in  the  Uffizi.  Yet  the  Budapest  picture  is,  perhaps, 
more  Giorgionesque  than  the  others  mentioned.  It 
is  a  fine,  sad  face,  a  poetic  type,  with  a  great  deal  of 
feeling  and  sentiment  about  it  that  agrees  with  a 
probable  Giorgione  at  Vienna  (No.  63),  and  it  also 
measurably  agrees  with  the  Castelfranco  Madonna, 
the  Sleeping  Venus  at  Dresden,  the  Boy  with  the 
Flute  at  Hampton  Court,  though  not  at  all  with  the 
Fete  Rustique  at  the  Louvre — another  supposed 
Giorgione.  The  brows  are  arched  and  the  mouth 
Cupid-bowed  as  in  the  St.  Sebastian,  the  David, 
and  the  Three  Wise  Men,  all  at  Vienna.  The  hand 
on  the  bosom  has  no  likeness  in  any  Giorgione,  real 
or  otherwise.  On  either  side  of  the  head  there  is 
a  fall  of  reddish  hair  that  seems  to  have  been 
painted  in  later.  If  these  falls  of  hair,  which  do 
not  agree  with  the  black  hair  at  all,  were  removed, 
the  head  might  prove  to  be  that  of  a  woman,  al- 
though the  face  seems  too  strong  for  that.  The 
picture  has  been  much  tinkered  with.  The  nose, 
mouth,  brows,  and  outline  of  face,  as  also  the  jaw 
line,  are  rather  hard  from  cleaning  and  retouching. 
The  neck  is  hurt  also. 

145.  Giorgione  (Copy  after).  The  Young  Paris  and 
Shepherds.  The  literature  about  this  fragment 
seems  to  argue  its  being  by  Giorgione  or  a  copy 
after  him.  But  how  shall  we  account  for  its  atro- 
cious drawing,  even  if  it  be  a  copy  and  repainted 
into  the  bargain?  Look  at  the  straight  line  of  the 
arm  with  the  red  sleeve,  the  bad  hand,  and  dreadful 


132  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

forefinger.  Look  at  the  wooden  legs — the  left  one 
crippled — of  the  same  figure,  or  the  left  hand  on 
the  shoulder  of  the  second  figure.  This  second  fig- 
ure has  also  a  short  leg  and  needs  his  shepherd's 
crook  in  walking;  his  hands  are  badly  drawn  and 
his  hips  are  impossible.  Both  men  have  the  narrow 
gimlet  eyes  of  Romanino.  The  landscape  is  just 
as  bad  as  the  figures.  Almost  any  one  could  have 
painted  it.  The  colour  and  light  are  after  the 
Giorgionesque  formula,  but  neither  is  cunningly  or 
subtly  handled.  The  general  look  of  the  picture  is 
not  so  bad,  but  it  will  not  bear  analysis  even  as  a 
copy  of  Giorgione.  It  has  no  look  of  a  copy,  being 
too  loosely  and  carelessly  done  for  that.  It  is  more 
like  a  bad  original  by  Romanino.  See  the  Roma- 
nino in  the  Dresden  Gallery,  called  the  Horoscope 
(under  the  name  of  Giorgione,  No.  186).  That  also 
is  said  to  be  a  copy  of  Giorgione,  but  is  by  the  same 
hand  as  this  Budapest  picture  (No.  145).  See  also 
the  two  Giorgiones  in  the  Uffizi  (Nos.  621,  630). 
They  are  said  to  be  early  Giorgiones,  but  they  have 
the  same  cocked  eyes  and  poor  drawing  as  this 
Budapest  picture  and  are  by  the  same  man — 
Romanino.  Even  the  fine  portrait  head  here  by 
Romanino  (No.  126)  has  a  feeling  in  the  eyes  that 
connects  it  with  this  alleged  Giorgione. 

23.  Giotto.  Head  of  a  Woman.  It  seems  to  be 
nearer  to  the  Lorenzetti  than  to  Giotto.  A  good 
head  of  the  early  time,  done  on  plaster  and  now  at- 
tractive in  both  line  and  colour.  What  very  fine 
colour  in  the  whites!  The  head  (No.  32)  is  not  so 
good. 

19.   Crucifix.    This  is  a  very  handsome  bit  of  gold 

and  colour,  with  small  figures  carefully  and  mi- 


GOSSART,  JAN  133 

nutely  done  for  the  Giottesque  time.  The  figure 
of  John  (shown  on  both  sides)  is  excellent.  The 
gold  work  and  colours  are  in  excellent  condition. 
It  is  probably  not  by  Giotto. 

35.  Giovanni  da  Ponte.  Mystic  Marriage  of  St. 
Catherine.  A  large  altar-piece  much  restored  in 
robes,  faces,  and  hands  but  still  showing  beauty  of 
colour  and  intensity  of  feeling.  The  background 
is  handsome  in  pattern  and  the  predella  is  as  inter- 
esting as  the  large  panel.  There  are  also  single 
figures  of  saints  in  the  frame.  Notice  that  Christ 
appears  as  a  grown-up  young  man  and  without  a 
beard.  The  Virgin,  too,  is  youthful.  This  is  a 
reversal  of  the  usual  treatment  of  this  subject. 
Attribution  questionable.  We  know  little  or  noth- 
ing of  the  works  of  this  painter. 

177.  Girolamo  da  Santa  Croce.  St.  John  Evan- 
gelist. The  figure  is  a  little  frail  but  is  striking  in 
its  green  robe.  The  colour  is  a  remarkable  har- 
mony of  blue  and  green.  It  is  an  early  Venetian 
picture  but  is  too  personal  and  individual  for  Giro- 
lamo. Even  the  catalogue  queries  its  own  attri- 
bution. Notice  the  depth  of  the  blue  distance  and 
the  atmospheric  effect. 

697.    Gossart,  Jan  (Mabuse).     Portrait  of  Charles  V. 

The  portrait  is  more  than  life-sized  and  not  the 
better  for  its  exaggerated  proportions.  The  elab- 
orate work  upon  the  jewels  looks  a  little  out  of 
place  in  so  large  a  portrait.  Besides,  the  lines  of 
the  gold  chain,  the  white  shirt,  the  black  ribbon 
are  all  disturbing.  The  modelling  in  head  and 
neck  is  weak.  It  has  decorative  colour.  Attribu- 
tion doubtful. 


134  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

341.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  Peasants.  The  trees,  fore- 
ground, and  distance  with  the  sky  speak  for  Van 
Goyen's  School.  Possibly  the  figures  were  added 
later  and  by  another  hand.  They  do  not  seem  to 
be  closely  related  to  the  landscape  but,  nevertheless, 
are  largely  modelled  and  drawn,  have  some  bulk 
and  body  about  them  and  also  fair  colour.  A 
good  picture  by  contrast  with  its  neighbours  and 
good  by  itself  considered. 

54.    Granacci,  Francesco.     St.  John  Evangelist.    The 

figure  is  harshly  drawn  but  with  firmness  and  truth. 
The  circle  is  not  too  well  filled,  and  the  landscape 
is  rather  crude.  The  work  seems  a  little  rugged 
and  coarse-grained  for  Granacci.  Nos.  71  and  78 
are  more  in  his  smooth  style  and  hot  colour — No. 
78  probably  being  genuine. 

69.  Grandi,  Ercole  di  Giulio  Cesare.  St.  John 
*  Evangelist.  A  fine  figure,  superb  in  type,  rich  in 
colour,  and  very  true  in  sentiment.  How  well 
it  is  drawn  in  the  face  and  what  handsome  folds 
of  drapery!  The  hair  also  is  beautifully  painted. 
There  is  a  suggestion  of  a  large  landscape. 

487.  Grebber,  Pieter  de.  Consolation.  It  has  a  Ru- 
bens facility  of  touch  in  the  hair  and  costume,  and 
might  pass  for  a  Rubens  elsewhere  than  in  this 
rather  carefully  arranged  and  well-attributed  gal- 
lery. 

328A.  Greco,  II  (Domenico  Theotocopuli).  An- 
nunciation. This  has  some  of  II  Greco's  queer  col- 
our and  is  facile  in  the  painting  of  wings  and  robes, 
but  form  is  slightly  indicated  and  as  a  whole  the 
work  is  inferior.  II  Greco  did  this  subject  several 
times,  notably  at  Madrid,  No.  827. 


HALS,  FRANS  135 

223.    Guardi,    Francesco.     Court    of   Ducal   Palace. 

Rather  forced  in  its  effect  of  light  and  dark,  a  little 
stiff  in  its  figures,  and  bunched  in  its  groups.  The 
clouds  are  hot.  The  painting  does  not  show  Guardi's 
fatty  quality,  nor  is  the  colour  exactly  his.  Still,  it 
makes  an  impression  and  is  fairly  good. 

230-  \ Nineteen   Scenes.     A   number   of   panels   by 

240  /  Guardi  or  members  of  his  school,  of  much  histori- 
cal and  topographical  interest.  Some  of  them  are 
also  very  lovely  in  colour  and  light.  They  are  de- 
cidedly picturesque. 

507A.  Hals,  Dirck.  Good  Company.  There  is  some 
brilliant  colouring  and  free  painting  about  it,  and 
the  ensemble  is  rather  good,  but  it  is  not  well 
drawn. 

N.  N.  Hals,  Frans.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Evidently  a 
**  new  acquisition  (1913)  for  it  is  without  number 
and  stands  on  an  easel.  It  is  excellent  in  its  quali- 
ties of  tone  and  texture  and  superb  in  its  lights  of 
the  linen  in  contrast  with  the  darks  of  the  dress. 
And  how  it  is  drawn !  Look  at  the  head,  the  queer 
eyes,  the  mouth  partly  ajar,  the  chin,  the  rather 
hard  nose.  It  is  a  strange  character  and  mentally 
seems  almost  foolish,  but  how  superb  it  is  physically ! 
The  collar  is  about  as  perfect  in  its  fluffiness  as  one 
could  ask  for,  and  the  rich  black  dress  with  its  pat- 
terns is  just  right.  The  easy  pose  of  it  is  again 
excellent.  The  left  hand  is  slung  in  the  cloak  and 
the  figure  is  a  little  muffled  by  the  same  cloak,  but 
effectively  and  suggestively  so.  Go  close  and  look 
at  the  brush-work,  for  here  Hals  is  sure  of  himself. 
Look  again  at  the  perfect  grey  background  with 
its  feeling  of  space  and  depth.  It  is  a  superb  por- 
trait. Hals  was  not  always  so  happy  in  spirit  nor 


136  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

so  really  great  technically  as  is  here  shown.  And, 
thank  Heaven!  the  frame  is  right. 

501.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  fair  example  of   Hals 

but  not  extraordinary  in  any  sense.  There  is  life 
about  it  and  some  clever  painting  in  the  eyes  with 
their  dark  shadows,  in  the  cheeks,  the  hair,  the  hat. 
The  sleeve  shows  some  ineffective  slashing  with  the 
brush.  The  shadows  are  dark.  Not  nearly  so  good 
an  example  as  the  recently  acquired  portrait  on 
an  easel. 

401.  Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der.  Portrait  of  Man 
and  Woman.  An  important  picture,  perhaps,  but 
unfortunate  in  its  surface.  It  is  too  glassy,  slip- 
pery, porcelain-like.  The  colour  is  cold  grey.  The 
characters  are  a  bit  weak.  Attribution  doubtful. 

178.  Italian  School  (16th  Century).  Portrait  of  a 
Man.  It  has  rich  colour  though  it  has  suffered 
much — too  much  for  positive  recognition  of  its 
painter.  Notice  the  attributions  in  the  catalogue, 
how  widely  they  differ.  Why  add  to  the  confusion 
by  suggesting  another  name?  Once  a  fine  portrait. 

420.  Jordaens,  Jakob.  Peasant  and  Satyr.  The  same 
theme  has  been  treated  by  Jordaens  elsewhere,  no- 
tably No.  238  in  the  Brussels  Gallery.  In  this  gal- 
lery the  colour  and  the  painting  look  refreshing  in 
their  largeness,  breadth,  and  body.  The  colour  is 
hot,  as  is  frequently  the  case  with  Jordaens.  The 
handling  is  easy  and  effectively  done.  The  spirit, 
of  course,  is  brutal,  and  the  physical  types  are  of 
the  same  nature,  but  at  least  the  presentation  has 
some  stamina  about  it. 

438.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  is  a  little  over  life-size, 

and  the  scale  of  it  seems  too  large  as  judged  by  the 


LIPPI,  WORKSHOP  OF  FRA  FILIPPO          137 

rather  pulpy  hand.  A  picture  of  some  merit  though 
the  surface  is  smooth,  which  gives  it  a  frail  effect 
for  all  its  size  and  bulk.  See  the  note  on  the  Borro 
portrait  at  Berlin  (No.  413A).  Jordaens,  not  Velas- 
quez, probably  painted  it. 

393.     Keyset,  Thomas  de.     Portrait  of  a  Woman.     A 

strong  characterisation  of  a  Dutch  woman,  heavy 
of  face  and  figure,  full  of  health  and  strength.  It  is 
admirably  drawn  in  head  and  hands,  and  painted 
with  the  skill  that  almost  every  Dutch  painter  had 
at  his  command.  Look  at  the  black  of  the  dress 
and  the  fat  hands. 

96.   Liberate  da  Verona.    Madonna  and  Child.    The 

picture  is  ruined  by  repainting.  Very  likely  Lib- 
erale  did  it,  for  the  suggestion  of  him  is  still  in  the 
drawing,  but  that  is  about  all  of  him  that  remains. 

52.  Lippi,  Filippino.  Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  An- 
thony of  Padua.  It  has  much  of  Filippino's  senti- 
ment but  is  certainly  not  by  him.  It  is  just  as 
certainly  by  the  painter  that  Mr.  Berenson  calls 
Amico  di  Sandro.  Compare  it  with  No.  1412  in 
the  National  Gallery,  London,  for  the  noses  of  the 
Madonna  and  Child,  and  that  one  feature  alone 
will  point  the  way  to  a  dozen  resemblances  in  type, 
disposition  of  drapery,  colour,  trees,  and  also 
buildings  in  the  background.  It  is  not  the  best 
example  of  this  Florentine  follower  of  Filippino  and 
Botticelli  but  is  nevertheless  fine  in  the  saints,  the 
flowers,  the  landscape,  the  sentiment. 

60.  Lippi,  Workshop  of  Fra  Filippo.  Madonna, 
Child,  and  Saints.  The  ascription  seems  right 
enough.  It  is  evidently  a  shop  piece  of  Fra  Filip- 
po's,  a  little  later  and  perhaps  more  advanced  than 


138  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

the  master  in  some  respects  though  possessed  of 
less  fine  feeling.  The  colour  is  rich,  as  notice  the 
saint  at  the  left,  or  the  sky,  or  the  architecture. 
It  is  somewhat  hurt. 

42.  Lippo  Memmi.  Madonna  and  Child.  There  is 
a  beautiful  background  of  gold  and  colour.  Noth- 
ing could  be  finer  or  richer.  The  faces  are  hurt 
and  the  attribution  is  questionable. 

44.    Lorenzetti,  Pietro.    Madonna  and  Child.    The 

picture  is  rightly  given  to  the  Lorenzetti,  but 
whether  it  is  by  Pietro  or  Ambrogio  may  be  left  to 
the  differing  connoisseurs  quoted  in  the  catalogue. 
The  background,  the  ornamental  haloes  and  bor- 
ders make  up  most  of  its  present  attraction.  The 
Madonna  and  the  Child  are  both  a  little  heavy 
even  for  a  Lorenzetti.  The  hands  are  not  good  and 
the  figure  of  the  Madonna  is  sack-like,  but  such 
crudities  were  to  have  been  expected.  Notice  the 
old  brocade  at  the  back. 

136.  Lotto,  Lorenzo.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  fine, 
strong  portrait,  with  much  of  the  emotional  feel- 
ing that  appears  in  Lotto  but  with  very  little 
of  Lotto's  technical  characteristics.  The  romantic 
look  of  it  seems  not  affected  in  any  way  but  it 
neverthelesss  becomes  a  little  wearisome  on  pro- 
longed acquaintance.  The  light  and  shade  are  in 
sharp  contrast  and  bring  the  attention  straight 
upon  the  face.  The  colour  is  excellent.  One  can 
merely  guess  at  its  painter.  The  eyes,  nose,  brows, 
forehead,  cheek-bones,  with  the  turn  of  the  head 
and  neck  and  the  general  air,  remind  one  of  the 
so-called  Young  Monk  in  the  Giorgione  Concert 
in  the  Pitti  (No.  185).  The  same  hand  possibly 
did  both  heads,  but  that  hand  was  possibly  neither 


MAES,  NICOLAS  139 

Lotto's  nor  Giorgione's.  The  nose  and  face  are 
hurt,  the  hair  retouched.  See  the  catalogue  note 
for  attributions. 

142.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  Francis.     It  has  been 

too  much  worked  over  by  restorers,  and  no  one 
knows  who  else,  for  any  certain  recognition  of  its 
author.  Look  at  the  faces  of  the  saint  and  the 
Madonna  or  the  hands  of  the  Child — the  Child 
that  is  reminiscent  of  Lotto.  The  catalogue  que- 
ries its  attribution.  On  the  frame  it  is  given  to 
Moretto. 

106.  Luini,  Bernardino.  Madonna,  Child,  St.  Eliza- 
beth, and  St.  John.  A  typical  Luini  in  sentiment, 
colour,  and  drawing.  Notice  the  rock  formation 
at  the  bottom  of  the  picture  (suggestive  of  Leo- 
nardo) and  the  woods  at  the  back.  The  figures  are 
rubbed  and  hurt  by  repainting.  Compare  it  with 
No.  108  near  by. 

110.    Madonna    with    Saints.       A    bright-coloured 

*  Luini  with  pretty  faces  and  his  usual  sentiment  so 
attractive  to  the  average  gallery  visitor.  It  has 
good  colour  and  drawing.  Probably  as  much  of  a 
masterpiece  as  Luini  was  capable  of  doing.  He 
never  rose  above  a  graceful  way  of  saying  things. 

369.    Maes,    Nicolas.     Portrait   of  a    Woman.     It   has 

the  cramped  look  and  drawing  of  Maes,  but  it  is 
done  a  little  later  than  the  woman's  portrait  at 
London  (No.  1675)  and  the  woman's  portrait  at 
Brussels  (No.  368),  both  of  them  attributed  to 
Rembrandt  but  done  by  the  painter  of  this  Buda- 
pest portrait — Maes.  He  is  here  becoming  a  little 
sweet  and  pretty  in  his  surfaces,  and  he  is  also 
weakening  and  softening  in  his  drawing.  His 


140  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

prettiness  came  with  his  prosperity  and  his  popu- 
larity. 

366.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     Done  in  the  same  vein  as 

No.  369 ;  if  anything,  a  little  smoother  and  weaker. 
There  is  a  larger  version  at  The  Hague  Museum. 
Both  versions  should  be  compared  with  the  Por- 
trait of  an  Architect,  put  down  to  Rembrandt  (No. 
246),  in  the  Cassel  Gallery. 

464.  Man,  Cornells  de.  Chess-Play ers.  It  pretends 
to  more  than  it  fulfils.  The  work  is  not  very  good 
in  either  drawing  or  colouring  and  its  surface  is 
disagreeably  glassy. 

73.  Marches!,  Girolamo.  Pieta.  The  work  has 
some  of  the  serious  quality  of  Bartolommeo  Mon- 
tagna  about  it  and  is  not  unlike  him  in  the  draw- 
ing. A  very  good  picture,  harsh  in  its  truthful- 
ness, perhaps,  but  commanding  in  its  sincerity  and 
its  strength.  Notice  the  excellent  if  hard  drawing 
of  the  heads  and  the  colour  of  the  beautiful  Mag- 
dalen. Other  versions  elsewhere. 

680.  Memling,  Hans.  Calvary.  It  is  a  hard  and 
glassy-looking  Memling.  How  cold  and  forbid- 
ding the  colouring!  The  sky  is  like  ice,  and  the 
clouds  are  badly  drawn  and  white-edged.  The 
figures  are  stiff,  the  robes  rather  good  in  colour, 
the  high  lights  over-prominent.  It  is  school  work. 

692.  Metsys,  Quentin.  Lucretia.  There  is  a  thin 
look  and  a  timid  surface  here,  and  yet  it  is  possi- 
bly not  a  copy  but  a  weak  original.  The  catalogue 
note  suggests  a  number  of  possible  painters  for  it, 
but  some  doubt  holds  about  any  one  of  them.  It 
is  eclectic  work  and  difficult  to  trace  home  to  its 
actual  author. 


MORONI,  GIOVANNI  BATTISTA  141 

339.  Molenaar,  Jan  Miense.  Hotel  of  the  Half  Moon, 
Haarlem.  A  well-grouped  assembly  in  front  of  a 
tavern,  with  a  good  landscape  at  the  back.  The 
colour,  light,  and  air  of  it  are  very  acceptable  with- 
out being  distinguished.  Molenaar  was  a  weak 
disciple  in  the  Hals  School  and  had  hard  work 
painting  up  to  his  wife,  Judith  Leyster. 

582.    Moreelse,    Paulus.    Portrait   of  a   Lady.     The 

painter  relied  so  completely  on  the  comely  looks  of 
his  sitter  that  he  thought  he  might  fumble  or  neg- 
lect the  hair,  the  lace  collar,  and  get  on  by  merely 
suggesting  the  figure.  The  head  and  the  body  are 
not  too  closely  related.  Both  are  a  little  flat.  But 
a  handsome  portrait  that  once  passed  as  a  Rem- 
brandt and  might  even  have  been  mistaken  for  an 
early  Van  Dyck. 

131.  Moretto  da  Brescia  (Alessandro  Bonvicino). 
A  Saint.  The  colour  is  good  and  the  landscape  is 
interesting.  As  for  the  saint,  he  now  has  a  flattened 
head  and  a  pulpy  hand,  thanks  to  renewals  in  the 
restoring  room.  The  green  curtain  and  sky  are 
well  given  as  regards  colour. 

164.    Morone,    Domenico.     St.    Francis    of    Assist. 

There  is  a  good  set-in  of  the  figures  and  the  archi- 
tecture and  a  fine  tone  to  the  picture.  The  figures 
all  kneel  well.  St.  Francis  is,  perhaps,  a  little  con- 
strained in  pose. 

1131  Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista.  St.  Catherine  and 
114J  St.  Dorothy.  There  is  a  sharp  snap  of  reality 
about  the  figures  characteristic  of  Moroni's  art, 
inclined  as  it  was  toward  portraiture  and  the  reali- 
sation of  the  model.  These  small  panels  should  be 
compared  with  another  Moroni  (No.  179)  in  this 
gallery. 


142  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

179.    Madonna,    Child,    and   St.    John.     This  is  a 

group  unique  in  arrangement,  architectural  niche, 
drawing,  and  colour.  It  shows  more  of  a  person- 
ality than  we  usually  associate  with  Moroni.  The 
Madonna  is  charming  in  type  with  long  fingers 
and  a  long  neck;  the  children  have  square  heads 
with  rings  of  flesh  about  their  necks.  The  blue  is 
a  little  harsh.  The  background  good  in  shadow 
and  air. 

311.  Murillo,  Bartholome  Esteban.  Portrait  of  a 
*  Man.  An  excellent  portrait — entirely  too  good, 
too  strong,  too  positive  for  Murillo.  He  never 
drew  with  such  strength,  painted  with  such  sure- 
ness,  or  had  such  mental  grip  as  this  portrait  evi- 
dences. It  was  painted  by  the  painter  of  the  Christ 
Bound  to  the  Column  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London  (No.  1148),  there  ascribed  to  Velasquez 
but  not  by  him.  Not  only  is  there  similarity  in 
colour,  tone,  flesh,  drawing,  brush-work,  but  there 
is  here  the  same  sentiment — something  that  Ve- 
lasquez never  knew  and  Murillo  turned  into  sen- 
timentality. The  portrait  is  worthy  of  study. 
There  is  no  portrait  in  this  gallery  that  goes  beyond 
it  in  interest.  Compare  it  with  the  Murillo  por- 
trait No.  328 — so  much  weaker  in  every  way. 

304.    Infant  Christ  Distributing  Bread.     The  usual 

sweet  performance  of  Murillo  with  neither  good 
sentiment  nor  good  technique  about  it.  The  draw- 
ing and  colour  are  both  negligible  and  the  whole 
picture  forgetable. 

328.    Portrait  of  the  Painter.     Compare  it  with  the 

portrait  No.  311  in  this  gallery,  and  notice  the  ab- 
solutely different  drawing,  handling,  treatment  of 
blacks,  and,  above  all,  the  essentially  different  atti- 


NETSCHER,  CASPAR  143 

tude  of  mind  as  shown  in  the  pictures.  This  por- 
trait is  by  Murillo,  whereas  No.  311  is  by  another 
hand.  This  is  a  poor  enough  piece  of  drawing  in 
the  forehead,  brows,  nose,  and  mouth.  There  is 
no  distinction  about  it  nor  any  great  skill. 

533.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Moonlight.  It  is  some- 
what hard  and  sharp  in  outlines  but  with  the  effect 
of  light  the  painter  was  seeking.  See  also  No.  537 
for  a  fire  scene  by  the  same  painter. 

676c.  Netherland  School.  Adoration  of  Magi.  This 
is  possibly  by  some  one  in  the  Herri  met  de  Bles 
School,  working  with  exaggerated  high  lights  and 
much  richness  of  colouring.  The  landscape  is  like 
the  Bles-Patinir  affair  that  is  attributed  first  to  one 
and  then  to  the  other  of  these  painters,  depending 
upon  the  gallery  where  you  happen  to  be.  (Not  in 
the  catalogue  of  1910.) 

693  1  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Barbara.     The  wings  of 

694  /  a  triptych  by  some  unknown  Netherland  painter  of 

ability.  They  are  good  in  both  sentiment  and 
colour.  A  positive  attribution  of  them  to  any 
Netherland  painter  would  almost  surely  be  uncon- 
vincing. The  man  who  did  them  probably  left  no 
name  to  us. 

477.  Netscher,  Caspar.  The  Medallion.  The  stu- 
dent should  notice  that  in  this  picture  by  Netscher 
there  is  some  of  the  dot-and-spot  work  supposed 
to  be  peculiar  to  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  and  appear- 
ing in  the  pseudo-Vermeers  at  London,  Amsterdam, 
and  The  Hague.  The  spotty  high  lights,  the  hard- 
ness of  the  dress  across  the  knees  are  similar  to  that 
in  The  Hague  picture  put  down  to  Vermeer  (No. 
625). 


144  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

82.    Niccold     (Alunno)    da    Foligno.     St.    Bernard. 

Notice  the  Umbrian  landscape  peculiar  to  Niccol6. 
The  figure  is  not  characteristic.  A  fresco  trans- 
ferred to  canvas.  The  colour  lacks  life  but  is  dec- 
orative. 

548.  Oils,  Jan.  Family  Croup.  It  is  well  done  and 
there  is  a  sense  of  ensemble  about  it  that  attracts. 
Notice  the  atmosphere  of  the  landscape. 
50.  Orcagna,  Andrea.  Madonna,  Child,  and  Six  An- 
*  gels.  A  work  of  decided  charm  in  colour  and  with 
much  fine  sentiment.  The  Madonna  has  not  yet 
entirely  lost  the  Byzantine  face  and  the  angels 
around  the  throne  do  not  yet  exemplify  the  laws 
of  perspective;  but  how  lovely  all  of  them  are 
in  feeling,  tenderness,  purity!  With  tooled  haloes 
and  patterns.  Notice  the  beauty  of  the  brocade 
back  of  the  Madonna  and  the  colour  beauty  in 
the  Child  with  his  white  under-vest  and  the  gold- 
embroidered  robe  across  the  knees.  Decorative 
effect  is  apparent  everywhere.  Notice  even  the 
rug  far  down  at  the  bottom  for  richness. 

514.  Ostade,  Adriaen  van.  Fish  Seller.  The  picture 
has  some  broad  brush-work  and  some  large  draw- 
ing about  it.  The  colour  is  not  remarkable. 

531.   A  Man  in  His  Library.     Here  is  not  only  good 

drawing  but  excellent  painting,  both  of  them  done 
in  a  large  way  with  no  petty  details  or  niggling  of 
stuffs,  or  pots,  or  pans.  What  fine  colour  1 

527.  Ostade,  Isaac  Van.  Interior  of  Peasant's  Hut. 
Given  with  excellent  light,  shade,  and  colour.  It 
is  not  entirely  in  the  style  of  Isaac  van  Ostade  but 
is  a  very  good  piece  of  painting,  nevertheless. 

116.  Pacchia,  Girolamo  da.  Madonna  and  Saints. 
The  frame  is  better  than  the  picture.  The  com- 


PIER  FRANCESCO  FIORENTINO  145 

bination  shows  how  well  even  an  inferior  old  master 
will  look  if  left  in  its  original  framing  and  regarded 
merely  as  decoration. 

301.    Pacheco,    Francisco.     Joachim  and  St.    Anne. 

A  fairly  good  picture  but  possibly  not  by  Pacheco. 
The  catalogue  queries  the  attribution.  It  has  the 
suggestion  of  an  early  Velasquez  but  is  not  by 
him  either.  The  drawing  is  good  in  the  robes, 
heads,  and  hands.  The  sky  and  distance  are  Ve- 
lasquez-like in  colour  and  very  decorative  at  that. 

105.  Padua,  School  of.  Pieta.  The  hands  seem  those 
of  Bartolommeo  Vivarini  and  the  foreshortened 
head  of  Christ  and  also  that  of  the  Madonna  seem 
the  work  of  some  Mantegna  follower.  It  is  a  hard 
piece  of  drawing,  grimaced  in  the  faces  and  dark- 
ened in  the  colour,  but  it  has  some  grip  and  force 
about  it.  See  the  various  attributions  listed  in  the 
catalogue  note. 

101.  Pannonio,  Michele.  Ceres.  A  queer  type  and 
with  rather  queer  colour.  The  drawing  of  the  face, 
hands,  and  lower  part  of  the  figure  is  by  no  means 
accurate.  The  left  knee  and  leg  are  especially 
faulty.  There  is  a  bizarre  richness  of  jewelling  in 
the  chair,  vases,  and  ornaments  of  the  figure.  It 
is  ornate  to  the  last  degree,  and  rather  fine  in  its 
ornateness.  In  superficial  appearance  the  picture 
is  not  unlike  the  pictures  attributed  to  Melozzo  da 
Forli  in  London  and  Berlin  and  in  measure  fore- 
shadows Cosimo  Tura.  The  painter  is  supposed 
to  be  a  Michele  Ongaro  who  worked  in  Ferrara 
about  1450. 

55.    Pier   Francesco   Fiorentino.     Madonna,  Child, 
*      and  St.  John.     The  drawing  of  the  Child  and  the 


146  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

type  of  St.  John  are  practically  the  same  as  those 
in  the  Madonna  by  Fra  Filippo  at  Berlin  (No.  69). 
The  angel  also  is  a  composite  of  the  Lippi  School. 
The  sentiment  of  the  picture  is  right  and  the  col- 
our is  charming  though  the  drawing  is  a  little 
hard.  The  flowers  in  relief  and  the  gold  work  are 
excellent.  Notice  the  tooled  halo,  the  different 
blues,  the  lovely  reds.  The  painter  was  an  eclectic 
working  at  Florence  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  fif- 
teenth century. 

118.    Pietro  da  Messina.    Christ  Bound  to  the  Column. 

Another  copy  of  this  picture  is  in  the  Venice  Acad- 
emy (No.  589).  Both  this  and  that  are  supposed 
to  be  after  the  original  in  the  Cook  Collection, 
London.  Neither  of  them  is  a  remarkable  picture 
though  at  one  time  both  were  thought  originals  by 
Antonello  da  Messina. 

83.    Pinturicchio,  Bernardo.     Madonna  and  Child. 

With  cherubim  surrounding  the  Madonna  in  the 
form  of  an  aureole.  Similar  works  at  Venice,  in 
the  Darmstadt  Gallery  (No.  513),  and  also  in  the 
Louvre  (No.  1417)  ascribed  to  the  School  of  Peru- 
gino.  The  sentiment  is  most  agreeable  and  the 
colouring  warm.  It  seems  the  best  of  several  ver- 
sions in  different  galleries.  Probably  by  Antonio 
da  Viterbo. 

138.    Piombo,   Sebastiano  del.     Portrait  of  a  Man. 

Thought  by  some  critics  to  be  a  likeness  of  Raphael. 
In  the  next  room  is  another  likeness  of  Raphael 
(No.  86)  with  which  this  might  be  compared  for 
resemblances  in  the  sitter.  Of  course,  the  face  and 
hands  and  dress  have  been  gone  over  by  the  re- 
storer, which  may  account  for  the  white  being  now 
too  high.  The  surface  is  weakened  and  softened 


RAPHAEL  (SANZIO)  147 

by  repainting  and  the  figure  flattened.  It  is  a 
somewhat  pretentious  work.  The  landscape  is 
interesting. 

77.    Previtali,    Andrea.     Madonna,    Child,    St.  John, 

*  and  Donor.     The  trees  are  the  only  things  that 
indicate  Previtali,  and  they  are  crudely  done.     The 
sky,  mountains,   and  the  Madonna  point  to  an 
early  Palma.     The  Madonna  is  very  lovely  in  her 
shadowed  face  and  the  rich  colour  of   her  robes. 
The  donor  has  a  sharp  profile  and  well-drawn  hands, 
and  the  group  of  children  is  happily  done.     See  the 
catalogue  for  the  various  attributions. 

93.    Madonna  and  Child.     The  Child  is,  in  type, 

like  the  St.  John  in  the  so-called  Previtali  (No.  77) 
in  this  gallery,  but  that  is  about  the  only  resem- 
blance between  the  pictures.  The  Madonna  here 
is  prettier,  softer  in  sentiment,  less  effective  as 
light,  shade,  and  colour,  more  brittle  in  texture, 
sweeter  in  the  painting  of  the  yellow  silk.  The 
landscape  is  very  good. 

53.    Raphael     (Sanzio).       The    Esterhazy    Madonna. 

*  A  graceful,  pyramidal  composition,  cunningly  va- 
ried in  its  putting  together,  serene  in  its  doing, 
without  much  tenderness  or  sentiment.     It  is  aca- 
demic in  poses  and  graceful  attitudes  that  show 
knowledge  of  the  figure.     It  is  more  demonstrative 
of  skill  than  of  feeling  and  marked  by  artifices  that 
show  the  young  Raphael  is  arriving  at  maturity 
of  method.     The  drawing  is  very  good,  the  drap- 
ery handsomely  disposed,  the  St.  John  charmingly 
sketched  in.     The  whole  group  is  a  little  sculptur- 
esque.    The   surface   is  now  smooth  though  the 
picture  was  never  finished,  the  colour  is  cool,  the 
landscape  pure  and  clear.     It  belongs  to  Raphael's 


148  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

early  time  and  seems  to  show  influences  emanating 
from  Leonardo  and  Fra  Bartolommeo.  What  a 
good  frame! 

86.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.     It  is  certainly  in 

the  style  of  Raphael  though  possibly  a  less  sure 
hand  than  his  drew  the  eyes,  nose,  mouth,  hands. 
And  a  cruder  brush  than  his  did  the  hair,  the  white 
edging  at  the  neck  and  wrist,  and  painted  the  land- 
scape. To  be  sure,  the  surface  is  much  repainted 
and  the  outline  of  the  face  and  neck  is  injured, 
but  apparently  the  drawing  was  never  very  cun- 
ning or  very  sure.  Moreover,  its  mental  grasp  is 
as  weak  and  insipid  as  its  technical  workmanship. 
Raphael  had  a  sober,  dignified  mind,  and  we  find 
here  a  rather  flippant  or  vacillating  mood  not  at 
all  pleasant  or  Raphael-like.  The  Raphael  look  is 
about  it  but  not  the  Raphael  quality.  An  inter- 
esting picture,  possibly  by  some  Raphael  follower 
or  imitator  and  probably  a  portrait  of  Raphael 
himself.  Much  repainted  in  the  face,  hands,  and 
elsewhere. 

540.  Rembrandt  van  Ryn.  An  Old  Rabbi.  It  is 
a  pinched  and  cramped  work  not  worthy  of  Rem- 
brandt either  in  its  mental  conception  or  its  tech- 
nical handling.  It  is  evidently  a  sketch  carried  as 
far  as  possible  by  a  painter  who  was  not  too  sure 
of  either  his  drawing  or  his  painting.  Notice  the 
face,  especially  the  eyes,  nose,  mouth,  beard — how 
ineffectively  they  have  been  struck  by  the  brush! 
The  hands  are  done  in  a  similar  manner  and  the 
hat,  cloak,  and  candlestick  are  no  better.  It  is  the 
work  of  a  Rembrandt  follower  but  not  the  master 
himself. 

542.   The  Holy  Family.     This  picture  is  by  some 

minor  painter  of  the  Rembrandt  following  in  which 


REMBRANDT,  SCHOOL  OF  149 

some  of  the  Rembrandt  studio  materials  (the  Jo- 
seph, for  instance)  have  been  used  or  copied.  It 
is  a  work  of  small  importance  and  gives  little  or 
no  hint  of  Rembrandt's  strength. 

544    Joseph's  Dream.     The  picture  has  charm  in 

*  its  colour.  Moreover,  it  is  rather  fine  in  its  diagonal 
composition  or  arrangement  of  the  figures,  its  light, 
and  its  atmospheric  setting.  It  is  drawn  and  painted 
in  a  rather  coarse  way  and  there  is  little  about  it 
to  suggest  Rembrandt  more  than  the  general  school 
look,  but  it  is  an  attractive  work,  nevertheless.  It 
might  have  been  done  by  Eeckhout,  one  of  the 
most  versatile  and  persistent  of  the  Rembrandt 
followers.  The  knuckles,  the  dabs  of  high  light,  the 
grey  light,  the  angel  suggest  him. 

368.    Rembrandt,  School  of.      Christ  before  Pilate.     A 

large  picture  with  some  pretension  in  its  size,  its 
subject,  its  colour.  Done  in  the  Rembrandt  vein 
but  with  weaker  drawing,  softer  textures,  and  less 
colour  quality  than  Rembrandt  usually  gave.  It  is 
somewhat  similar  in  style  to  the  large  Centurion 
Cornelius  of  the  Wallace  Collection  (No.  86).  In 
both  pictures  we  have  similar  high  lights  on  the 
noses,  similar  hands,  head-dress,  types,  colours. 
This  picture  is  probably  by  some  follower  like 
Flinck,  who  was  by  no  means  a  poor  painter  save 
by  comparison  with  Rembrandt.  The  Christ  here 
(No.  368)  is  exaggerated  in  the  whiteness  of  the 
flesh  but  is  well  drawn  and  rightly  painted.  The 
same  brush  probably  did  the  Saul  before  David  at 
The  Hague  (No.  621)  and  the  Parable  of  the  Work- 
ers in  the  Vineyard  at  Frankfort  (No.  181).  The 
Wallace  Collection  picture  was,  perhaps,  by  Ber- 
naert  Fabritius. 


150  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

404.    The    Treasure    Hunter.     A    Rembrandtesque 

effect  given  with  considerable  strength  in  the  figure, 
the  head,  arm,  white  shirt,  but  it  is  not  Rem- 
brandt's strength.  The  still-life  at  the  bottom  in 
its  painting  seems  much  prettier  and  more  finical 
than  the  figure.  The  landscape  was  probably  done 
by  the  same  hand.  None  of  it  is  wonderful.  There 
is  a  composite  character  about  the  work  that  is 
curious.  The  Rembrandt  look  of  the  digger  may 
mean  merely  that  he  was  used  as  a  model  by  many 
of  the  school — pupils  as  well  as  the  master. 

287.  Ribera,  Jusefe  (Lo  Spagnoletto).  Martyrdom 
of  St.  Andrew.  Done  in  the  usual  realistic  manner 
of  Ribera  with  strong  modelling  brought  into  high 
relief  by  the  use  of  dark  shadows.  The  colour  is 
rather  sacrificed  to  the  shadow  and  subordinated 
to  the  flesh-notes  in  the  high  light.  It  is  good  work 
of  a  harsh  nature  with  little  or  no  charm  or  any- 
thing winning  about  it.  It  commands  respect  by 
its  seriousness  and  its  strength  but  fails  to  attract 
by  its  subject,  sentiment,  types,  or  decorative  plan. 

125.  Romano,   Giulio.     Diana  and  Endymion.     It  is 

excellent  in  the  colour,  the  swing  of  the  drapery, 
the  action  of  the  figure.  The  effect  of  light-and- 
shade  is  forced  but  forceful. 

126.  Romanino,  II  (Girolamo  Romani).     Portrait  of 
*      a  Man.     The  costume  and  curtain  produce  a  very 

ornate  effect  but  with  some  uneasiness  in  the  lines 
of  the  golden  pattern  and  some  feeling  of  closeness 
in  the  curtain.  The  characterisation  of  the  sitter 
is  excellent  in  spite  of  the  lax  drawing  in  the  eyes, 
nose,  and  ear — perhaps  by  virtue  of  this  very  laxity. 
The  man  is  before  us,  at  any  rate,  and  with  some 
positiveness  into  the  bargain.  The  picture  is  hurt 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  151 

in  the  neck,  beard,  and  elsewhere.  It  is  a  fine 
Romanino. 

122.    Rosselli,    School   of   Cosimo.      Nativity.     The 

angel  and  the  colouring  suggest  Albertinelli  but 
the  work  is  not  important  enough  to  repay  much 
study.  The  space  is  not  badly  filled  nor  the  fig- 
ures badly  drawn,  but  the  picture  is  wanting  in 
inspiration,  feeling,  profound  technical  knowledge. 
It  is  well  framed. 

418.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  Mucius  Sccevola.  A  pic- 
ture that  adds  nothing  to  our  knowledge  of  Ru- 
bens or  of  his  school.  It  was  probably  designed  by 
Rubens  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  brush  that 
points  to  him.  It  may  be  a  school  piece  but  it  has 
not  the  surface  of  even  school  work. 

646A.   Study  Head.     This  head  is  put  down  as  a 

study  for  one  of  the  heads  of  the  three  Magi  at  the 
church  of  St.  John  at  Malines,  but  it  is  more  likely 
a  copy  by  the  hand  that  did  the  series  of  apostles' 
heads  in  Madrid  (Nos.  1646-1656),  there  assigned 
to  Rubens  but  probably  by  some  pupil  or  follower. 

610.   Portrait  of  a  Man.      A  strong,  fine  portrait 

*  with  excellent  modelling  in  the  skull,  the  forehead, 
the  brows,  the  cheeks.  How  well  the  eyes  are  set 
in  the  head!  And  how  positively  the  head  sets 
in  the  ruff  and  joins  the  shoulders!  The  figure  is 
merely  suggested  but  it  is  enough.  The  type  is 
not  an  intellectual  one  and  yet  not  wanting  in 
intelligence.  The  physical  presence,  however,  is 
the  main  feature  demonstrated.  But  for  its  flesh 
colour  and  its  brush-work  one  might  think  it  an 
early  Van  Dyck  so  like  to  him  is  it  in  pose  and 
turn  of  head  and  eyes.  Cleaned  a  little  too  much. 


152  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

492A.  Ruisdacl,  Jacob  van.  Landscape.  A  sketchy 
picture,  easier,  freer,  looser  than  usual  with  Ruis- 
dael,  and  the  better  for  it.  It  is  more  enjoyable 
than  his  finished  work.  The  sky  and  trees  are 
good. 

515.    Ruysdael,  Salomon  van.     Landscape  after  Rain. 

In  the  style  of  Van  Goyen  but  weaker  in  drawing 
and  poorer  in  colour.  The  light  is  not  good. 

524.    The  Tavern.     It  is  thin,  poor  work,  better, 

perhaps,  than  that  of  No.  515  but  not  markedly  so. 

85.    Santi,     Giovanni.      Madonna    and    Saints.      A 

crude  work  of  very  little  skill  or  quality,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  even  Giovanni  Santi, 
poor  workman  and  uninspired  painter  that  he 
was,  could  or  would  do  anything  so  commonplace. 
Even  the  flowers  seem  dull  and  the  sky  dead. 

76.  Sarto,  Andrea  del.  Madonna,  Child,  and  St. 
John.  It  is  a  poor,  repainted  panel  that  probably 
never  emanated  from  Andrea  or  even  his  work- 
shop. Look  at  the  crude  landscape,  the  badly 
drawn  eyes,  the  wretched  colour. 

25.  Sassetta  (Stefano  di  Giovanni).  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas.  Very  fine  in  colour  and  beautiful  in  its 
architectural  drawing.  There  is  a  delicacy  of  fin- 
ish that  speaks  for  Sassetta.  It  corresponds  with 
his  pictures  at  Berlin,  the  Vatican  Gallery  (No.  176), 
and  elsewhere.  Notice  the  gold  work  and  the  re- 
mains of  the  altar-piece  at  the  left.  The  chapel 
at  right,  the  courtyard  at  back  are  equally  inter- 
esting. There  is  individuality  here  which  enables 
connoisseurship  to  be  more  positive  in  its  conclu- 
sions. 


SIGNORELLI,  WORKSHOP  OF  LUCA  153 

31.  Segna  di  Bonaventura.  St.  Lucy.  Rich  in  the 
red  robe.  Byzantine  influence  is  still  apparent  in 
the  nose,  eyes,  and  hands.  Is  it  a  part  of  the  old 
frame  that  still  shows  at  the  top?  The  hand  is 
dreadfully  repainted  and  the  head  has  not  escaped. 
See  the  catalogue  note  for  attributions. 

56.  SellajO,  JaCOpO  del.  Esther  and  Ahasuerus. 
The  architecture  is  askew  and  the  gold  work  a 
little  careless  in  the  tracing,  as  was  the  habit  of 
Jacopo  in  his  minor  work.  The  figures  are  well 
grouped  and  quite  splendid  in  their  rich  costumes. 
Other  pictures  of  this  series  in  the  Louvre  and  the 
Uffizi  (Nos.  66,  67,  68).  They  all  show  good  senti- 
ment with  charm  of  colour.  Notice  the  grace  and 
loveliness  of  the  kneeling  Esther. 

39.  Sienese  School.  Holy  Family.  The  background 
is  interesting  for  its  early  study  of  landscape  with 
an  attempt  at  light  from  the  sky.  The  Joseph  is 
awkward  but  the  Madonna  graceful. 

46.    Coronation    of    Virgin.     Excellent   in    colour 

and  with  charming  patterns  in  the  central  fabric. 
Notice  the  incised  halo  and  crown  and  the  lovely 
white  head-dress.  A  beautiful  piece  of  colour! 
Part  of  a  panel  cut  off  from  a  larger  picture  and 
added  to  at  the  left  and  the  bottom.  No.  45  is 
much  poorer  work  and  No.  34  is  practically  ruined. 

67.    Signorelli,  Workshop  of  Luca.     Tiberius  Grac- 

chus.  The  type  is  slight  and  the  landscape  too 
crude  for  Signorelli,  and  yet  the  picture  is  certainly 
in  his  manner.  The  colour  and  sentiment  are  both 
a  little  weak.  Notice  this  not  only  in  the  chief 
figure  but  in  the  scroll  at  the  base  held  by  the 
stiff  little  cupids. 


154  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

51.  Simone  Martini.  Annunciation.  The  angel  is 
like  the  Simone  angel  of  the  Annunciation  in  the 
Uffizi.  The  gold  work  is  just  a  little  coarse,  the 
Madonna  a  little  heavy.  The  picture  shows  Si- 
mone's  influence  but  is  not  by  him. 

79.  Sodoma,  II  (Giovanni  Antonio  Bazzi).  Ma- 
donna, Child,  and  Saints.  A  composite  picture 
suggesting  half  a  dozen  different  painters  but  with 
no  certainty  about  any  one  of  them.  The  only 
certainty  about  it  seems  to  be  that  it  is  in  no  way 
wonderful  whoever  painted  it.  The  sentiment  is 
over-done  as  well  as  its  ornamental  features.  It  is 
decadent.  Notice  the  affectation  of  the  women's 
heads  with  their  pretty  leanings  to  the  side. 

90.   Flagellation  of  Christ.     An  interesting  panel 

by  the  Sienese  master,  the  figure  and  pose  of  the 
Christ  being  typical  of  him.  The  figures  are  a 
little  short,  the  shadows  dark,  the  colour  bleached 
in  the  high  lights,  the  landscape  blue.  A  good 
panel. 

N.  N.  Spanish  School.  Crucifixion.  An  altar-piece  in 
five  compartments  put  down  to  the  Spanish  School. 
It  is  very  interesting  in  its  unusual  scheme  of  colour 
in  which  green  apparently  predominates.  Not  well 
drawn  at  all  nor  accurately  painted  but  very  dec- 
orative. It  is  a  following  of  the  Flemish  primitive 
style.  Other  panels  of  the  early  Spanish  School 
hanging  near  by  are  equally  lacking  in  accurate 
knowledge  and  skill  but  are  decoratively  attractive. 

95.    Speranza,  Giovanni.     Madonna  and  Child.    The 

hardness  of  the  drawing  in  the  nose,  brows,  and 
hands  should  not  cause  us  to  overlook  the  rather 
fine  spirit  of  this  picture.  It  has  feeling,  simplicity, 


TIEPOLO,  GIOVANNI  BATTISTA  155 

and  dignity.     There  is  also  a  rich  gamut  of  colour. 
The  panel  has  been  injured. 

21.  Spinello  Aretino.  Two  Saints.  Two  panels 
with  a  predella,  all  of  them  interesting  in  art  his- 
tory. They  are  still  fine  in  their  gold  grounds  and 
borders  and  in  their  richness  of  colour  though  very 
much  injured.  Notice  especially  the  predella. 

347.  Steen,  Jan.  Family  of  Cats.  It  is  either  very 
careless  work  or  else  it  has  been  repainted  from 
end  to  end.  There  is  nothing  about  it  now  to  indi- 
cate Steen's  quality  as  a  painter.  It  has  neither 
pure  colour  nor  sure  handling  nor  fatty  surfaces. 
Mere  clumsiness  of  the  brush  is  about  all  that  one 
can  see  in  it  to-day.  The  signature  does  not  help 
matters  in  the  least. 

48.  StefanodaZevio(P).  Madonna  and  Child.  Sack- 
like  in  form  but  still  fine  in  haloes  and  borders. 
The  space  within  the  handsome  frame  is  well  filled. 
See  the  catalogue  for  the  various  attributions  and 
denials  heaped  upon  this  picture.  But  it  is  a  lovely 
picture  in  spite  of  differing  opinions  as  to  its  painter. 

227.  Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista.  St.  James  of  Com- 
postela.  A  large  though  rather  soft  and  weak  Tie- 
polo.  The  horse  has  been  prettified  and  the  man 
slightly  exaggerated  in  sentiment  and  pose.  The 
whites  do  not  appear  to  be  well  managed,  the  sky 
has  been  hurt,  and  the  negro  has  blackened.  It  is 
not  now  a  successful  Tiepolo  whatever  it  may  have 
been  when  originally  painted.  Tiepolo  had  more 
strength  than  is  here  shown — more  tang  to  his  char- 
acterisation. Yet  the  picture  is  by  no  means 
negligible.  It  is  handsome  colour  and  decoration. 

266.    Madonna,    St.    Joseph,    and   Five   Saints.     A 

bright  scrap  of  colour,  easily  painted,  with  the 


156  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

facility  that  Tiepolo  had  at  the  end  of  his  fingers 
and  displayed  early  and  often.  He  was  a  composer 
of  ceiling  groups  of  great  energy  and  life  and  a 
colourist  of  brilliancy  and  charm — the  last  and 
one  of  the  most  attractive  of  the  great  Venetian 
decorators. 

154.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio) .  Portrait  of  a  Woman. 
An  attractive  head  but  a  little  weak  for  Titian. 
Add  to  it  the  weakening  processes  of  restoration 
and  it  becomes  unimportant  work — that  is,  at  the 
present  time  unimportant. 

81.  Umbrian  School.  Madonna  and  Child.  It  be- 
longs somewhere  near  Pinturicchio  though  prob- 
ably not  by  him.  It  is  a  little  weak  for  Pintu- 
ricchio and  the  landscape  does  not  suggest  that 
master.  The  colour  is  pleasing. 

88.    Madonna  and  Child.     This  is  too  much  hurt 

to  determine  its  origin.  The  bird  is  very  good 
and  perhaps  the  landscape  is  its  best  feature — it 
having  been  done  with  care  and  some  feeling. 

328F.  Velasco  de  Coimbra.  Nativity.  Whoever  did 
this  panel  put  good  feeling,  good  colour,  and  some 
strength  into  it.  It  shows  apparently  Flemish  in- 
fluence. 

328E.  Velasquez  (Diego  de  Silva  y).  Shepherds  at 
Table.  The  still-life  on  the  table  and  the  figure  at 
the  right  suggest  an  early  Velasquez,  but  it  is  not 
impossible  that  the  picture  may  have  come  from 
Ribalta  or  Pacheco  who  often  worked  in  this  same 
vein.  It  is  hard  in  drawing  and  not  very  good  as 
colour.  But  it  has  strength  and  is  just  as  good 
as  some  of  the  genuine  early  Velasquez  pictures  at 
the  Prado.  Not  everything  of  Velasquez  origin  is 
unalloyed  gold. 


VERMEER  OF  DELFT,  JAN  157 

499A.    Velde,    Jan   Jansz  van   de.     Still-Life.    It   is 

excellent  in  colour  and  extremely  well  painted. 
See  also  No.  499. 

385.  Velde,  Willem  van  de.  Calm  Sea.  A  character- 
istic Van  de  Velde  with  a  silvery  tone  and  a  high 
sky.  Notice  the  delicate  drawing  of  the  ships  and 
sails. 

133.  Venetian    School.     Madonna    and    Child.     The 
colour  is  a  bit  crude  and  the  landscape  is  airless. 
No  one  knows  who  did  it. 

134.    Christ  Bearing  Cross.     What  a  good  piece  of 

colour — thanks,  perhaps,  to  its  being  little  harmed 
by  restorers  and  cleaners  or  at  least  not  repainted 
beyond  recognition.    The  landscape  seems  excel- 
lent. 

456.  Vermeer  (Van  der  Meet)  of  Delft,  Jan.  Por- 
**  trait  of  a  Woman.  Vermeer  mu'st  have  been  almost 
as  versatile  a  person  as  Giorgione  or  Rembrandt  to 
have  done  all  the  things  put  down  to  him.  In  the 
National  Gallery,  London,  he  is  hard,  glassy,  petty 
in  detail;  in  The  Hague  landscape  he  is  wonderful 
in  colour,  light,  and  air;  in  the  figure  piece  of  the 
Graces  in  that  gallery  he  is  idyllic,  Giorgionesque, 
a  colourist;  here  at  Budapest  he  is  intensely  indi- 
vidual, psychological,  penetrating,  flat  in  modelling 
and  handling,,  almost  evanescent  in  delicacy  of  col- 
ouring, profoundly  realistic  in  a  large  way.  Pre- 
sumably the  attribution  here  was  arrived  at  by  a 
process  of  elimination.  If  not  by  Vermeer,  who, 
then,  did  it?  is  the  question  asked.  And  to  this 
there  is  no  reply.  It  is  no  doubt  by  Vermeer  but 
agrees  with  only  a  few  of  his  accepted  works  in  other 
galleries.  It  is  like  the  portraits  at  Brussels  (No. 
665)  and  The  Hague  (No.  670),  like  the  fine  land- 


158  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

scape  at  The  Hague  (No.  92),  like  some  of  his  inte- 
riors with  small  figures  at  Dresden,  Berlin,  and  Am- 
sterdam; but  when  all  that  is  said  the  picture  still 
remains  almost  in  a  class  by  itself.  The  modelling 
of  the  forehead,  the  cheeks,  and  brows  is  most  effec- 
tive. The  eyes  are  a  wonder  of  observation  and 
workmanship.  As  for  the  figure,  it  is  very  well  sug- 
gested, the  gloves  beautifully  painted,  the  relation 
of  whites  excellent  even  now  when  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  them  somewhat  changed  by  clean- 
ing. The  chair  and  table  are  merely  suggested, 
the  background  is  slight,  the  handling  broad  and 
free,  with  slight  traces  of  dotting,  as  in  some  of  his 
smaller  works.  Presumably  a  late  work,  which 
makes  it  impossible  to  believe  that  Vermeer  hard- 
ened or  grew  glassy  in  his  surfaces  as  he  aged.  It 
is  a  masterpiece.  See  the  notes  on  his  Hague  and 
Amsterdam  pictures  under  those  galleries. 

139.    Veronese,  Paolo  (Caliari).    Allegory  of  Venice. 

It  is  a  poor  variation  of  the  Ducal  Palace  picture 
at  Venice  by  some  weak  follower  of  Paolo.  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  it  a  study  for  the  Venice  pic- 
ture. It  is  too  weak  for  a  Veronese  sketch  but 
right  enough  for  a  copy  by  some  follower. 

92.  Verona,  School  of.  Volto  Santo.  With  a  fine 
landscape  and  considerable  richness  of  effect  in  the 
jewel  work  of  the  robe  border.  A  picture  difficult 
to  assign  to  either  a  master  or  a  school.  See  the 
attributions  in  the  catalogue. 

59.    Verrocchio,     Workshop     of.     Madonna    with 
*      Saints.     This  is  one  of  the  pictures  that  every  con- 
noisseur takes  pleasure  in  guessing  at.     Of  course 
no  one's  guess  satisfies  more  than  himself.     The 
picture  is  a  composite  affair  put  together  by  some 


VOS,  CORNELIS  DE  159 

eclectic  painter  of  the  time  who  helped  himself  to 
features  of  Verrocchio,  Rosselli,  and  others.  The 
types,  especially  the  angels  at  the  back,  point  to 
Verrocchio.  Also  the  drawing  of  the  hands  and 
feet  favour  Verrocchio.  But  the  colour,  the  com- 
position, the  garden  at  the  back  suggest  Rosselli. 
The  drawing,  colour,  sentiment  are  all  good.  The 
kneeling  saint  and  the  Madonna  are  fine  and  the 
architecture  is  rich.  It  is  a  very  good  picture 
whoever  did  it.  The  panel  is  split  in  several  places 
and  the  surface  is  somewhat  injured. 

395.  VictOOFS,  Jan.  Jacob  Blessing  the  Children  of 
Joseph.  There  is  a  weak  suggestion  of  Rembrandt 
about  it,  some  brilliancy  of  colour,  and  some  pretti- 
ness  of  handling.  The  picture  has  evidently  been 
injured  by  repainting. 

103.  Vivarini,  Antonio.  Madonna  and  Child.  It  be- 
longs in  the  Vivarini  workshop,  with  none  of  the 
marked  characteristics  of  either  Antonio  or  Barto- 
lommeo  Vivarini  about  it.  It  is  elaborate  in  de- 
tail and  rather  hot  in  colour,  with  patterned  gold 
work  at  the  back.  The  flowers  are  not  too  well 
done  nor  the  blue  of  the  robe  too  pleasant  in 
quality. 

1191  Magdalen   and   St.   Lucy.     Two    panels    that 

120  /  make  pleasant  spots  of  colour  on  the  wall  and 
are  decorative  but  not  otherwise  remarkable. 

442  \  Vos,  Cornells  de.    Portraits.    Smooth  and  rather 
446  J  pretty  portraits  that  belong  together — at  least  in 

the  matter  of  their  uneasy  curtain  backgrounds 

and  their  porcelain-like  costumes. 

601.    Portrait  of  a  Lady.     It  has  a  Van  Dyck  look 

in  the  eyes  but  is  too  weak  for  him.     Some  painter 


160  THE  FINE  ARTS  MUSEUM 

influenced  by  Rubens  probably  did  it,  and  not  un- 
likely Cornells  de  Vos  was  the  man. 

399.  Wet,  Jacob  de.  Circumcision  of  Christ.  This 
is  the  kind  of  picture  that  is  usually  declared  "an 
early  Rembrandt"  in  French  and  German  galleries. 
One  has  merely  to  examine  it  closely  to  see  that  it 
is  the  shadow  not  the  substance  of  Rembrandt. 
The  work  is  fairly  well  done,  the  setting  is  good, 
the  colour  is  attractive.  It  is  the  average  good 
work  of  a  Rembrandt  follower. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


19. 

Giotto. 

76. 

Sarto,  A.  del. 

21. 

Spinello  Aretino. 

77. 

Previtali. 

23. 

Giotto. 

79. 

Sodoma. 

25. 

Sassetta. 

81. 

Umbrian  School. 

29. 

Avanzi. 

82. 

Niccold  da  Foligno. 

35. 

Giovanni  da  Ponte. 

83. 

Pinturicchio. 

39. 

Sienese  School. 

85. 

Santi,  Giovanni. 

42. 

Lippo  Memmi. 

86. 

Raphael. 

43. 

Duccio. 

88. 

Umbrian  School. 

44. 

Lorenzetti,  P. 

90. 

Sodoma. 

46. 

Sienese  School. 

92. 

Verona,  School  of. 

48. 

Stefano  da  Zevio. 

93. 

Previtali. 

50. 

Orcagna. 

95. 

Speranza. 

51. 

Simone  Martini. 

96. 

Liberale  da  Verona. 

52. 

Lippi,  Filippino. 

97. 

Catena. 

53. 

Raphael. 

98. 

Crivelli,  Carlo. 

54. 

Granacci. 

99  \ 

55. 

Pier  Francesco  Fioren- 

100  J 

Cossa. 

tino. 

101. 

Pannonio. 

56. 

Sellajo. 

102. 

Catena. 

58. 

Ghirlandajo,  Ridolfo. 

103. 

Vivarini,  Antonio. 

59. 

Verrocchio,    Workshop 

104. 

Basaiti. 

of. 

105. 

Padua,  School  of. 

60. 

Lippi,  Fra  Filippo. 

106. 

Luini. 

63. 

Bicci  di  Lorenzo. 

108. 

Gianpietrino. 

67. 

Signorelli. 

109. 

Basaiti. 

69. 

Grandi,  Ercole. 

110. 

Luini. 

70. 

Bacchiacca. 

111. 

Bellini,    School    of 

72. 

Francia. 

Giovanni. 

73. 

Marchesi,  Girolamo. 

112. 

Borgognone. 

74. 
75. 

Boccato  da  Camerino. 
Francia. 

113  \ 
114  J 

Moroni. 

161 

162 


INDEX 


>  Venetian  School. 


115.  Boltraffio. 

116.  Pacchia. 

117.  Bellini,  Gentile. 

118.  Pietro  da  Messina. 
119 } 

120  I  ^*varm*>  Antonio. 

121.  Correggio. 

122.  Rosselli,  School  of. 

124.  Costa. 

125.  Romano,  Giulio. 

126.  Romanino. 

128.    Bartolommeo  Veneto. 

131.    Moretto  da  Brescia. 

1331 

134  J 

136.   Lotto. 

138.  Piombo,  Sebastiano  del. 

139.  Veronese,  P. 

140.  Giorgione. 

145.  Giorgione,  copy  after. 

147.  Bassano,  Jacopo. 

154.  Titian. 

158.  Cremona,  School  of. 

161.  Dossi. 

164.  Morone,  Domenico. 

177.  Girolamo  da  Santa 

Croce. 

178.  Italian  School. 

179.  Moroni. 
180A.  Bissolo. 
180D.  Dossi. 
204.   Feti. 
223.   Guardi. 
227.   Tiepolo. 
230.   Canaletto. 

23Hi 
240   / 
2551 
256  j 


>  Guardi. 


>  Belotto. 


266.   Tiepolo. 
283.   Carducho. 

Ribera. 

Pacheco. 


Murillo. 
Cano. 


287. 

301. 

304 

311 

320 

321 

328/  Murillo. 

328A.  Greco,  II. 

328s.  Carrefio  de  Miranda. 

328E.  Velasquez. 

328r.  Velasco  de  Coimbra. 

331.   Fabritius,  B. 

339.   Molenaar. 

341.   Goyen,  Van. 

347.   Steen. 

365.  Elias. 

366.  Maes. 

368.  Rembrandt,  School  of. 

369.  Maes. 
372.   Elias. 

385.   Velde,  W.  van  de, 

393.   Keyser. 

395.   Victoors. 

399.   Wet,  Jacob  de. 

401.   Heist,  B.  van  der. 

404.   Rembrandt,  School  of. 

407.   Gelder. 

410A.  Flinck. 

416.   Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

418.  Rubens. 

419.  Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

420.  Jordaens. 
435.   Balen. 
438.   Jordaens. 


456.   Vermeer  of  Delft. 


INDEX 


163 


464.   Man,  C.  de. 

477.   Netscher. 

485.   Decker. 

487.   Grebber. 

492A.  Ruisdael,  J.  van. 

499A.  Velde,  J.  J.  van  de. 

501.  Hals,  Frans. 

502.  Duck. 
507A.  Hals,  Dirck. 
514.   Ostade,  A.  van. 


527.    Ostade,  I.  van. 

531.   Ostade,  A.  van. 

533.    Neer,  A.  van  der. 

540] 

542  >  Rembrandt. 

544  J 

548.  Oils. 

549.  Bol. 
582.    Moreelse. 
587.   Cuyp,  Albert. 
593.   Brouwer. 
601.   Vos,  C.  de. 
610.   Rubens. 
642.    Coques. 
646A.  Rubens. 


651.    Brueghel    the    Elder, 

Peter. 
653.   Brueghel  the  Younger, 

Peter. 

673.   Aertsen. 
676c.  Netherland  School. 
678.   Aldegrever. 
680.    Memling. 
682.   Engelbrechtsen. 
684.   Bles. 
692.    Metsys,  Q. 

^  |  Netherland  School. 

696.  David. 

697.  Gossart. 

697A.  Cleve,  Juste  van. 
699.   Diirer. 


Cranach  the  Elder. 


716  : 

7191 

728  J 

729A.  Baldung. 

729a.  French  School. 

N.N.  Beuckelaer. 

N.N.Bosch. 

N.N.Hals,  Frans. 

N.N.  Spanish  School. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  beloi 


5Mar'52SA 


REC'D  LD 

APR  20  1960 


LIBRARY  USE 

APR.  -9 197 0 
HEC 

APR    9197Q 


LD  21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


YA  01132 


393598 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


